the sequel was a good game, fun but in the end it was not as good as the first.
While both share a large similarity in the combat system, map and theme design, enemies and bosses, and lore discovery, the execution of them is what separate the games.
Of the categories the only one that the second game does better then the first would have been the game mechanics. I say would because had it been pulled off right, it wouldn't even be a question. Unfortunately there were misshaps. Some things worked very well, like when it felt more reasonable when your armor weight went up instead of just the shear fast roll to fat roll transitions of the first game. While such ranks still existed, there was some slower ramp up between. Things like the agility stat and the attunement increasing both casts and slots. The smaller parry and backstab windows. These worked well and were welcome additions.
Hell, I was a fan of the new infusion system, separating item level from enchantment. Not so much a fan of allowing spell enchantment to already enchanted things but still, the tool upgrade was less needlessly clustered.
Other aspects not so much. Magic being grossly over powered, the entire soul memory mishap, poise being useless. Covenents being broken and ill-thought out. Some brokenly over-powerful weapons like the arbalest or the santier's spear. These had obvious flaws that impacted the rest of the game, especially since they wanted to try to promote multiplayer more. And they played off each other as well, taking what should have been an annoyance alone and making them into a larger issue.
For example, the covenants of the blue sentinels is suppose to help those of another covenant when invaded. Cool idea, and helpful to weaker players. Problem arise when the point of invading is made moot by game design. The covenant that invades makes it a horrible chore to do so, requiring you win duels in the arena to invade other people. Pvp wins in order to pvp, where broken overpowered weapons are used so only a few can farm the orbs needed to invade. Furthermore, the memory system makes invading even more of a headache, where skill and player level run contrary to what is intended and there is little purpose or reward in invading outside of the blood covenant or the arbiter sentinel idea.
so what happens? nearly no one tries to invade, so three entire covenants' purposes are sidelined. Of the arena style combat, matchmaking is broken and between dominant strategy, overleveling and just grossly mismatched power levels, remains largely unfun and in ways more punishing then previous games.
The other areas of the game, the map, the enemies, the lore and discovery? They lose flat out unfortunately. They all feel like imitation with few actual moments of genius.
The maps are very linear, and there is little feeling of getting lost in the world so much as trying to find out how to access the next series of linear maps. There is no feeling of awe when you find a shortcut to a different area you didn't realize existed or making use of the web of shortcuts and such to quickly rush to a favorite item after you know where to get it. It just feels very, well, video-gamey. Like a series of stages themed instead of a total world that i unique in each place. I remember the forest with the hydra and the tombs darkness and the library's crytal icy look and the crystal caves themselves. I remember blighttown though I wish I didn't and even the firey underworld. Hell, I rememebr the ashy grey lake under it all.
Of dark souls two, I remember the nexus...and the cove. And majula, always majula. Hell, I would argue that the central hub actually did a disservice to the rest of the game, as it always felt like a safe haven to warp back to any time, rather then the one you found a shortcut back to and stumbled back into with a sudden burst of "oh thank god I know where I am!"
The enemies are, in a word, cheap. I don't care if that makes me sound like some lazy casual but in the second game, there are so many more cheap enemies it isn't even funny. There are god damn invisible backstabing enemies for crying out loud?! Actually, they probably highlight the overall enemy problem in a nutshell. Those enemies are not hard in that they require you be precise or gauge your foes. They don't require you measure your response and progress slowly. They demand that the first time you fight them you die. There is no preparation, just a cheap, unexpected, unavoidable death to "teach" you the enemies exist. And that is the challenge of most of the enemies of the game. Not a moveset to learn, but a gimmick that kills you until you until you learn it. and I know that is hard to put into the right words here, but so much of the game felt like the enemies hit hard just because they wanted to be harder without actually making them harder. The exploding jumpers in the Bastile, the invisible enemies, the damn homing magic down in the cove and the shrine...
I suppose the best way to put it would be comparing it to a D&D campaign. The first game was a hard fight but every monster felt fair (save the archers in new londo maybe, though even they give some advanced warning that they are going to hit you), the second game feels more like the GM is intentionally trying to kill you instead of making a challenge to overcome. Again, I am sorry I can't put the feeling of difference into words here.
The bosses? I would damn near say embarrassingly bad at times. more then half are large humanoid enemies that you circle-strafe around and smack. Some you fight multiple times. The idea of improving difficulty? increase the damage they do, the health they have or clone them. I am sorry, but that is just lazy. The mobs are suppose to be treated like that, not the actual bosses.
Then there is the ancient dragon, the epitome of "make it hard by instadeath", who is also so ridiculously easy to kill when you know the trick that the idea of the boss fight itself is insulting. Lets compare that to the optional non-agressive boss of the first game, the halfdragon girl herself. Hell, bonus points since she is invisible too and does that right too. In the first game, there is snow on the ground so someone paying attention can see where she is, even if not exactly sure how she will act. You see her disappear beforehand and know she is there and to watch out for the massive fuck-off scythe. You get bits and pieces of lore to know what she is capable of beforehand. and when she hits you, it hurts, but you don't feel that it is trying to cheaply oneshot you.
Finally, the lore. The second game just feels less alive. Lore lacks a lot of the contextual placement that the first was known for. In the first. we learned about why phantoms invaded because of where they did and where their bodies were as well as lore from items. We learned about events that occurred because of the environment around. It felt like nearly every unique object was placed where it was for a reason, as part of a story to tell. In the second one? again, it felt very video-gamey, placed as rewards alone...
Really, while it is a good game in its own right, the second dark souls just pales in comparison in the end.
