Any love for Dark Souls 2?

[Danbo Jambo]

Because I absolutely thrive on it. More so than the first game.

DS1 I enjoyed to some degree (would rate 7/10), but most of the changes made from that to DS2 have made the experience far, far better for me.

I can't tell you how grateful I am that after killing enemies time after time they finally disapear. Having to do the same thing over & over & over again in the original really ground me down, and made the experience far too repetitive.

I also feel as if the game is just as devious, but far fairer. When I die in DS2 I usually feel like it's my fault, whereas in DS1 I often felt as if there was little I could do about the situation. So many times in DS1 something would kill me which I had no chance of knowing about or avoiding, whereas in DS2 it often warns me first, then kills me anyway lol.

The difficulty as a whole does seem easier, but still challenging and far less of a grind. I feel like I'm progressing because I'm learning and being rewarded for my actions, not just because I get lucky with builds or attack paterns etc. I feel rewarded more for do-ing rather than thinking and planning, and that to me is just more fun.

All that said DS1's world was richer & knitted together far better, I can definitely see why the more corridor-esq approach to DS2 annoyed some. And yes some areas are quite bland. But there are also other areas such as the Majula, the Iron Keep, The Dragon Shrine, Aldia's Keep, Shrine of Amana etc. which I think are stunning.

I'm just nearing the end but haven't quite finished it yet, and I'd rate the experience a 9/10. I can appriciate it's different strokes for different folks, and I can see why this would be deemed as the "Diet Dark Souls" of the series. But as a more casual gamer who likes the more arcade-style approach, out of the 3 DS games I've played so far (Demon Souls, DS1 & DS2) it's by far my fave.

Anyone else share the love for it?

 

[jademunky]

While I do think it is the weakest of the three and has easily the least memorable boss battles, it is still a fantastic game in it's own right. One think I love is that it it allowed you to adjust your own personal difficulty level with the items you equip, the build of your character and the covenants you join (to a much larger extent than the first). Wanna be a mage and just cheese your enemies? Sure, you can just by magic replenishing items now! Wanna go all two-swords? Yeah that is actually viable this time around (still hard in PVE).

And yes, it has a sex-change coffin. Boy was that a shocker first time I used it.

 

[CaitSeith]

Are you playing the original one? Or the Scholar of the First Sin edition? There are differences in some enemies and items locations, and it includes DLC areas (no longer "bloody expensive" here).

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

I just miss being able to power stance a pair of Greatswords.

What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of these two slabs of metal grinding everything into a pulp. It wasn't a particularly good build, but God, it was fun.

 

[Aerosteam]

Dark Souls 2 sucks. I give it a 7/10.

 

[Level 7 Dragon]

Boss battles were rather weak, despite that I loved DS2 more than any other game in the series.

Castle Vendrick, Sunken City and Majula itself.

And yeah, power stancing two axes while dressed as a viking never stops being fun.

 

[Benpasko]

It has the most content in the series, a huge variety of different playstyles you can use, and some incredibly varied scenery. I think that in a few years when the Souls series is dead, people will realize how good DS2 actually was. The lore was the weakest in the series, for sure, but the systems (soul memory aside) are the best in the whole series. After how disappointed I was with Dark Souls 3, it made me appreciate 2 even more.

It's also the only one where you character doesn't roll like they're spring-loaded, so that's nice too. It has a good heavy feel to it.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Are you playing the original one? Or the Scholar of the First Sin edition? There are differences in some enemies and items locations, and it includes DLC areas (no longer "bloody expensive" here).

The original vanilla 360 version.

It has the most content in the series, a huge variety of different playstyles you can use, and some incredibly varied scenery. I think that in a few years when the Souls series is dead, people will realize how good DS2 actually was. The lore was the weakest in the series, for sure, but the systems (soul memory aside) are the best in the whole series. After how disappointed I was with Dark Souls 3, it made me appreciate 2 even more.

It's also the only one where you character doesn't roll like they're spring-loaded, so that's nice too. It has a good heavy feel to it.

I've yet to play 3, but good summary

 

[Fox12]

I really tried to like DS2. I thought the opening was cool, and the idea of you losing your identity due to hollowing was cool. It was introduced in the first game, of course, but DS2 made it feel more gradual.

But that combat! It just felt janky and bad the whole time. Enemy hit boxes were clumsy and all over the place, so id take damage without getting hit. The I frames felt horrible compared to DS1. I tried to see what you were supposed to do to increase I frames, and there still doesn't seem to be a clear answer. When you put these two things together, you get nothing but frustration. Enemy attacks would lock onto your location, which was annoying. My character felt slow, and it didn't seem clear when an attack made contact. After a while I realized I just wasn't having fun.

The level design was tolerable, but not great, or even particularly good. We all remember the sunken lava city that rests above a windmill.

The lore gets more hate then it deserves. It wasn't as good as 1 by any stretch of the imagination, but it was interesting. Honestly, I think it was way better then the cluster fuck story in DS3. I probably would have enjoyed the game if hadn't been for the combat.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Worry not, brother, you're not alone. While I would be hesitant to call it the best of the series overall, I'd say it's the best game out of the 3 mechanically, and the one I've gotten the most hours (close to 300) out of. In terms of balance, gameplay, amount of weapons, functionality and variety of playstyles it's borderline flawless. Powerstancing is awesome, and I have no idea why they removed it from DS3. The lore and level design are the weakest in the series, but the DLC is perhaps the strongest. Artorias of the Abyss is amazing, but compared to DS2's DLC rather linear and slim.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

About fifteen minutes of DS2 turned me off the entire series and maybe even the company/auteur-in-chief... so, personally, I probably have a negative amount of affection for that game. It also provided another harsh lesson in the dangers of buying completely blind, based on nowt but trust and faith for a series or company. As someone totally did say in the X-Files: trust no one - except LP's and first-hand gameplay experience.

OT: People hated Dark Souls II like how people hated Skyrim over Oblivion- they didn't like what it lacked.

A bit tangential, but I ostensibly loathed Oblivion because it wasn't Morrowind, and actually really enjoyed Skyrim purely for what it was once I'd gotten over Bethesda's new, post-Morrowind design ethos.

It's the same case here ... yea Dark Souls 1 was amazing in lore, in story telling without revealing it up front, and memorable with it's rich atmosphere- yet the clunky mechanics and poor design in other areas made it a 8 / 10 for me. However, Dark Souls II, despite lacking that great level of a story, character depth, and lore, it does right in the areas Dark Souls 1 failed to deliver.

As ever, subjective is as subjective does; I personally liked neither the changes to combat DS2 made, and I cared far more about DS's lore and mood and world cohesion than anything that required button presses or life bars. I disagree DS2's core combat is somehow objectively better (hit detection's all over the place, the greater prevalence of multiple enemies contradicts the strengths of the actual mechanics/combat design, and I didn't like how they altered weight and endurance), but for me with DS lore/themes and atmosphere > gameplay.

It's a rather snarky and obvious line I keep coming out with, but I can't really help it as it gets to the root of my issue with DS2; it has no soul, to me it was filler, a cash-grab minus the spark of genius that made DS (and DeS) something truly special. It was like tacky fanfic, constantly nodding and nudging and winking to the player about DS1, possibly in the hope that through referential osmosis it would borrow some of its subtle brilliance... In short, it was just another videogame to play, nothing more.

...and yes, I know criticising a game for just being a game seems odd, but for me DS1 transcended its genre whilst being quintessentially of its medium.

I can't tell you how grateful I am that after killing enemies time after time they finally disapear. Having to do the same thing over & over & over again in the original really ground me down, and made the experience far too repetitive.

Apologies if you only want positive replies for DS2, but given you did touch on pros and cons of both, it kinda feels okay to respond to those, or at least explain why I feel the exact opposite.

Again, on a purely gameplay level? I can understand that. But for me that was a negative, thematically and conceptually - when I realised that was the case, I bridled at it just as when I discovered you could fast-travel/warp right from the beginning. General mobs always respawning underlined the world's indifference to your presence. I see DS1 as a profoundly existential experience, and an indifferent world where your actions could often be seen as utterly futile was crucial to that. What's the point in wading through enemies again, knowing you can never truly defeat them, never truly bend the world to your own whims and 'beat' it?

DS1 had a kind of Sisyphean quality. The momentary despair when the figurative rock rolls back down, and the agency and will required to consciously decide to head back down, resolve renewed. The player is challenged to find their own meaning in the world and their actions right from the beginning.

So yeah, for me DS1's repetition was vital to a broader reading of it.

 

[Saelune]

I can't tell you how grateful I am that after killing enemies time after time they finally disapear. Having to do the same thing over & over & over again in the original really ground me down, and made the experience far too repetitive.

Apologies if you only want positive replies for DS2, but given you did touch on pros and cons of both, it kinda feels okay to respond to those, or at least explain why I feel the exact opposite.

Again, on a purely gameplay level? I can understand that. But for me that was a negative, thematically and conceptually - when I realised that was the case, I bridled at it just as when I discovered you could fast-travel/warp right from the beginning. General mobs always respawning underlined the world's indifference to your presence. I see DS1 as a profoundly existential experience, and an indifferent world where your actions could often be seen as utterly futile was crucial to that. What's the point in wading through enemies again, knowing you can never truly defeat them, never truly bend the world to your own whims and 'beat' it?

DS1 had a kind of Sisyphean quality. The momentary despair when the figurative rock rolls back down, and the agency and will required to consciously decide to head back down, resolve renewed. The player is challenged to find their own meaning in the world and their actions right from the beginning.

So yeah, for me DS1's repetition was vital to a broader reading of it.

I dont like the idea that I might eventually run out of enemies to kill. That plus soul memory has kept me from getting far in the game. (Same feeling for effigies which also seem to be limited, unlike the easily farmable humanity)

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I dont like the idea that I might eventually run out of enemies to kill. That plus soul memory has kept me from getting far in the game. (Same feeling for effigies which also seem to be limited, unlike the easily farmable humanity)

Yeah, it kinda sucked in a number of ways. In DS1, from right the off, I felt I had absolute freedom with how to progress in the world, and it also acted as another subtle way to affect difficulty, ostensibly giving the player endless opportunities to adapt if they wanted to develop something about their stats or gear.

 

[Saelune]

I dont like the idea that I might eventually run out of enemies to kill. That plus soul memory has kept me from getting far in the game. (Same feeling for effigies which also seem to be limited, unlike the easily farmable humanity)

Yeah, it kinda sucked in a number of ways. In DS1, from right the off, I felt I had absolute freedom with how to progress in the world, and it also acted as another subtle way to affect difficulty, ostensibly giving the player endless opportunities to adapt if they wanted to develop something about their stats or gear.

Lots of people, even those new to Dark Souls games have beaten it...but Im the type who is afraid to waste even one diamond in minecraft, cause I fear I will run out of them. Its just a level of stress that I dont have in Dark Souls 1 cause I know everything needed is replenishable.

And I hate the diminishing HP bar. Alot of the things I dont like about DS2 are really problems from Demon Souls that were initially fixed in DS1.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I vastly prefer it to the first. It runs more smoothly on PC. It did a much better job selling me on the world being something I'd way to explore and experience (Dark Souls never really did). Enemies disappeared eventually, which made the occasional bone-crushingly difficult sections bearable. The game also had some boss fights that I'd actually put among my favorites.

Unfortunately, like the original, I just didn't have time for it, and all the Souls games thrive on having the time to really invest in the world. Excessively long breaks from the game break all immersion for me. However, Dark Souls made me leave for a while because I just got bored. Dark Souls 2 was a matter of circumstance.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I do not understand Dark Souls II's power. Dark Souls had the better story, the better world, the better atmosphere, and the combat was pretty much the same. II only tweaked a few things in combat (power stance, more rings, etc...), and it gutted Dark Souls backtracking/world linking. By rights, this game should not be more enjoyable than Dark Souls.

And yet, Dark Souls II has this magic about it that keeps calling me back. I got the platinum for II, and played it again and again. When Scholar of the First Sin came out on PS4, I got the platinum once more, and still kept playing. When I got the platinum in Dark Souls, I put the game away and haven't touched it since. I just don't know what it is about II, but something in it hooked me...
I think it has something to do with the fact that the story isn't all that fleshed out. There are still holes in it, so I can make up my own ideas. There's an air of mystery around the game, in a good way, that keeps me thinking about it.
And, despite it being really just one long line of different areas, instead of connected like Dark Souls, each area is so wildly...different, that sometimes it's fun to just stand there and stare at the place. Shrine of Amana remains my favorite place out of all three games, with Painted World coming in second. The beautiful haunting music that plays throughout that area is just amazing.
Were the bosses kind of...uninspired? Yes. Was the world a patch job of areas that don't make much sense? Yes. Is the story a bit weaker? Yes. And yet, despite all of that, I still have more fun playing it than I do playing any of the other Souls games, Bloodborne included. Staring out at the sea, climbing up the chain to the Brume Tower, trekking down into the depths of Shulva, wading through the Shrine of Amana--all of these are moments that just stick with me, far better than anything Dark Souls did--despite Dark Souls doing pretty much everything better.
I simply do not understand.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Maybe I just haven't gotten far enough in yet, but it's just not capturing me the same way the first game (and now the third) did. I ended up stopping and moving on to 3 after killing the scorpion *****. The areas are IMO, not nearly as interesting as the other two games with Majula being the only real exception so far. The enemies are also a lot more bland so far. Also, a lot of the boss fights seem kind of lazy design wise. Finally, the hitboxes for some enemy attacks are completely fucked, which results in combat not feeling as crisp as in the first game.

However, I will go back to it eventually since it sounds like it improves later on. Also, the linearity doesn't really bother me. Dark Souls' non-linearity was very cool once I had played through the game once, but the initial playthrough with the trial and error based around if enemies in an area were one-shotting me wasn't great. I think the slight non-linearity of 3 is the best balance so far (at least, on the first playthrough).

 

[Danbo Jambo]

The original vanilla 360 version.

My man, you're missing out big time. Scholar of the First Sin edition (regardless for Xbox One or 360) is quite superior and does a lot of improvements on the original version, plus includes all three DLCs. If you love the game now, by god ... the DLCs are on par with Artorias of the Abyss DLC in terms of quality. Do yourself a favor and get the newest version which includes everything mate.

OT: People hated Dark Souls II like how people hated Skyrim over Oblivion- they didn't like what it lacked. Sure Oblivion had more interesting quests and more memorably moments, but ... let's not kid ourselves. Skyrim is superior in a lot of other ways, and I doubt seeing people ever going back to Oblivion after playing 20+ hours of Skyrim. It's the same case here ... yea Dark Souls 1 was amazing in lore, in story telling without revealing it up front, and memorable with it's rich atmosphere- yet the clunky mechanics and poor design in other areas made it a 8 / 10 for me. However, Dark Souls II, despite lacking that great level of a story, character depth, and lore, it does right in the areas Dark Souls 1 failed to deliver.

Much better mechanics, MUCH better PvP balance, harder bosses that aren't stupid (Fume Knight will ruin your day no matter how skilled you are lmao) and best of all, it added a lot of differences to NG+. When you go through the first game in NG+, enemies are harder yes but nothing changes besides difficulty. In Dark Souls II's NG+, you see different enemies, more invaders, changes to make it worth playing again with the upgraded difficulty.

I also love Dark Souls III, because it took the best out of both games and made it quite successful. Yea even at this point i'm burned out from replaying Dark Souls III, yet I can't WAIT for the DLC that's coming out for it this October 25th. It's going to make Dark Souls great again!

These DLC's sound great, so I dare say I'll re-purchase SOTFS for the PS4.

Some great points regards DS2 vs DS1 too. DS2 is just far more fun for me, whereas DS1 often felt work-like.

I can't tell you how grateful I am that after killing enemies time after time they finally disapear. Having to do the same thing over & over & over again in the original really ground me down, and made the experience far too repetitive.

Apologies if you only want positive replies for DS2, but given you did touch on pros and cons of both, it kinda feels okay to respond to those, or at least explain why I feel the exact opposite.

Again, on a purely gameplay level? I can understand that. But for me that was a negative, thematically and conceptually - when I realised that was the case, I bridled at it just as when I discovered you could fast-travel/warp right from the beginning. General mobs always respawning underlined the world's indifference to your presence. I see DS1 as a profoundly existential experience, and an indifferent world where your actions could often be seen as utterly futile was crucial to that. What's the point in wading through enemies again, knowing you can never truly defeat them, never truly bend the world to your own whims and 'beat' it?

DS1 had a kind of Sisyphean quality. The momentary despair when the figurative rock rolls back down, and the agency and will required to consciously decide to head back down, resolve renewed. The player is challenged to find their own meaning in the world and their actions right from the beginning.

So yeah, for me DS1's repetition was vital to a broader reading of it.

That's fair enough. I can see the appeal in it, I just found it tiresome and - As someone who doesn't get anywhere near as much time for games as I used too - often impractical.

I do not understand Dark Souls II's power. Dark Souls had the better story, the better world, the better atmosphere, and the combat was pretty much the same. II only tweaked a few things in combat (power stance, more rings, etc...), and it gutted Dark Souls backtracking/world linking. By rights, this game should not be more enjoyable than Dark Souls.

And yet, Dark Souls II has this magic about it that keeps calling me back. I got the platinum for II, and played it again and again. When Scholar of the First Sin came out on PS4, I got the platinum once more, and still kept playing. When I got the platinum in Dark Souls, I put the game away and haven't touched it since. I just don't know what it is about II, but something in it hooked me...
I think it has something to do with the fact that the story isn't all that fleshed out. There are still holes in it, so I can make up my own ideas. There's an air of mystery around the game, in a good way, that keeps me thinking about it.
And, despite it being really just one long line of different areas, instead of connected like Dark Souls, each area is so wildly...different, that sometimes it's fun to just stand there and stare at the place. Shrine of Amana remains my favorite place out of all three games, with Painted World coming in second. The beautiful haunting music that plays throughout that area is just amazing.
Were the bosses kind of...uninspired? Yes. Was the world a patch job of areas that don't make much sense? Yes. Is the story a bit weaker? Yes. And yet, despite all of that, I still have more fun playing it than I do playing any of the other Souls games, Bloodborne included. Staring out at the sea, climbing up the chain to the Brume Tower, trekking down into the depths of Shulva, wading through the Shrine of Amana--all of these are moments that just stick with me, far better than anything Dark Souls did--despite Dark Souls doing pretty much everything better.
I simply do not understand.

I think the gameplay plays a major part in that. It's just fun. However I shaped my character I found fun, viable ways of playing, and I never felt as if I was "hindered" as I did in the first.

The structure trims a lot of the fat out the previous games for me too, and that really made a big difference. I'm no longer doing the same things over & over just to get to the place I was 5-10 min ago, I'm usually doing those things a few times, or said point is only a min or 2 away anyway. For me that means you spend more time doing and enjoying, rather than what feels like labouring.