There are a lot of reasons it was not received as well.
However, it is still a good game and the SOTFS edition can be bought for 20$ usually.
Reasons many may dislike it are:
• [Soul Memory](https://darksouls2.wiki.fextralife.com/Soul+Memory) System
• Adaptibilty stat affecting your i-frames on rolls and Estus Flask drink speed
• A lot of artificial difficulty by lots of enemy ganks and gank bosses
• Clunkier movement and combat
• More simple boss design and difficulty
• Worse level design and interconnectivity than Dark Souls 1
• Enemies do not respawn if killed too often (unless you join a covenant that makes the whole game harder) (credit: u/RetroNutcase)
• Death is more punishing as you lose more of you max HP with each consecutive death until a max HP reduction of 50% (credit: u/RetroNutcase)
• The vibe is more classic fantasy than the distinctive dark fantasy from DkS1 & 3.
For example, the Old Iron King and Nashandra look like they are out of a Diablo game.
I would add "Kick the player while they're down mentality" to the list in that death is WAY more punishing in Dark Souls 2 due to
\-Health loss with every death
\-Limited resources to regain lost health unless you play online and co-op
\-Limited enemy respawns unless you elect to make the game even harder
\-You can be invaded while hollow
It’s still not as rough on the player as Demons Souls though, one death you lose half your health and the enemies will hit harder and you’ll do less damage. The game also doesn’t even tell you the more times you die in body form the harder it gets lol
Yep. Coming from demon's souls to ds1 was heavenly.
Getting cursed by basilisks was like, a cool callback. Death for the most part, aside from souls lost, had little consequence.
Ds2 health bar mechanic was an interesting callback to demons souls, but I see where having not played Demon's souls, the introduction of that mechanic seems like absolutely fucked design.
I don't mind it but I get why some do.
Same for me, demons souls was my first souls game, I feel like it’s a good mechanic, there should be more punishment for dying than just potentially losing the games currency, it gives the game that extra little bit of tension
It’s really strange to me how much hate DS2 gets for its death system while Demons Souls seems loved even though Demons Souls is objectively far more punishing with its death system.
I think it's because DeS was more experimental because FS was trying out the 3rd person style, but with DS2 they already knew what worked and made "unnecessary changes" to a formula they knew worked well.
That’s because demon souls was fair
There’s no doors in iron keep that explode launching you around
There’s no dragonrider on a three inch wide path of death pits
There’s no random holes of death and random holes of loot
There’s no boss fights with petrify rats
There’s no enemies with 0 recovery time
There’s no shrine of amana period frankly
There’s no black gulch shit
Why dark souls and demon souls are beloved and the later games usually only defended by those who played the new ones first is because the first two were genuinely fair for 99% of the game, dark souls 2 3 and even ER and BB can really make you want to ask who the fuck tested this game? Especially when they’ve lots of foundations to build on
[here’s a good video](https://youtu.be/Np5PdpsfINA?si=MsWtjVDneLJGUMl7)
I know I got away from your comment a lot but it’s something that needs saying
The pits around Dragon Rider disappear if you hit the switches on the way to the fight. Sounds like someone didn't explore very well.
Honestly, this all sounds like a failure to play creatively, which gets to my main point: DS2 doesn't let you min-max and pick a single weapon. People hate it because it requires a flexibility the other games don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh sweetheart I’m talking about the copy paste dragon riders like the one in the shrine of amana…
Also you don’t need flexibility, ds2 shits out souls to you in such an amount that you can have literally everything without having to go to ng+
Sounds like someone doesn’t know what he’s talking about
Ok, yeah, I also hate the copy/paste shit – Elden Ring is *way* worse for this, mind you.
As for the Dragon Rider in Shrine of Amana, not only do you not have to fight him at all (and there's not much point until you've defeated Vendrick, ie the endgame, when you should be plenty strong), you definitely don't need to fight on a narrow little strip unless you're masochistic. Like, lure him away a little bit, jeeze. Kudos if you fought him there and won, though?
Like, yeah, I'm not an expert, but I've played DeS through to Elden Ring and I'm not claiming DS2 is perfect or the best of the lot. But, your post being case in point, it really does seem like a lot of the frustration with DS2's difficulty has more to do with players' rigidity then anything inherent in the game. The way it "shits out souls" is part of this. Just don't pour them all into strength and try to to big bonk your way through – learn a couple spells or miracles. Or heck, do pour them into strength, but, when you find an area "unfair," go respect and try something different!
…no dark souls 2 is shit because it’s unfair, it’s difficulty is artificial and nonsensical, relying mostly on enemy spam and bullshit multi enemy bosses wasting your time or annoying you
The shrine of amana is literally indefensible because of this, and it’s not the only one of its kind
You cannot defend dark souls 2 here, there’s no defense
While, yes, Shrine of Amana (and the path to the Smelter Demon in Iron Keep) are both famously and needlessly difficult, those are two small sections of a huge game. And, honestly, neither of them are harder than platforming down to the Three Fingers in ER or the Anor Londor archers in DS1.
Hell, wanna talk unfair? In my first DS1 playthrough (blind) I found my way to Ash Lake early game, and had to fight all the way back up while cursed and underlevelled. It sucked. But I persevered, and I don't loudly complain about DS1 because I had hard time.
DS2 isn't perfect, but it's a great game. Lucatiel is easily the most emotionally affecting NPC in the series. Its huge branching world offers a freedom of progress and exploration that is only matched by ER (but unlike ER, it's not a big empty world). Majula is the best hub in the series. There is lots of room for thoughtful, strategic combat, and really fun, challenging battles. It's also got lots of neat puzzle elements – enough that I forgive the stupid obscurity of burning the windmill (and, hey, everyone knows about that now).
Your health cutting in half isn’t even the worst part, it’s when you go into black world tendency that things get bad. There’s no way to make things easier other than beating certain black phantoms, primeval demons, and bosses. Otherwise you’re stuck in extra hard mode forever
It isn’t even that bad, at least not the one time I had PBWT. All I did to get out of it was kill the primeval demon, and killed like 4 black spirits of that, and the rest of what I did was just farm. It was world 4, and I was on 4-2, killed the primeval demon located near the start, and a couple of the black spirits that appear a little further on, the rest of my time was just killing the storm beast and the first reaper over and over and it cleared quickly. Also, while the enemies get stronger in black tendency, they also give more souls as a reward, so it is great for farming. There is also an easy to get ring that will lessen the amount of health you lose in spirit form. On top of that, NG is such a pushover in DeS anyway, especially on a strength or magic build. All of this makes it much less noticeable than DS2, and overall more enjoyable.
Do you realize what you’re saying? DS2 doesn’t go any lower than half, and it only goes there gradually. Demons Souls you lose it all at once. That’s objectively far more punishing. You need to die several times in DS2 to lose as much health in one death in Demons Souls, with both capping the loss to no more than half. And this isn’t event taking world tendency into consideration.
Just a small correction here - it's technically not true that maximum health loss in DS2 is capped at 50% as one can achieve Wretch status and then go all the way up to 95% maximum health loss after 19 deaths without consuming a single Effigy. Though that takes some effort for sure. It seems like the person you're responding to is either an invader at heart, bloody good at PvP yet terrible at PvE, and ignorant of game mechanics, or they killed every single NPC there is on multiple cycles.
Anyway, the more important thing here is that DS2 offers many ways on how to mitigate health loss to the point where it's actually really generous with its resources. All the complaints I see here make me laugh because it looks like half the people here missed many crucial things, and they still don't realise it even now. You're good, though.
Well, I'd expect that the other commenter would have mentioned it, but it's likely they don't know what they're talking about and have never had Wretch status when they didn't. Here's some info on that if you would be interested:
http://darksouls2.wikidot.com/sin
The main reason most people probably wouldn't know is that it's mainly for experienced invaders who wouldn't die much, so even they wouldn't see any effects of this mechanic. Weapons scaling with hollowing max at 50% and challenge runs with it are basically no hit runs, so there's very little practical use of this whole thing.
While these are all quite obnoxious, I do miss bonfire ascetics. Getting the +2 and higher rings in DS3 would have been really interesting if they were in that game.
I was horrified that invasions and co-op didn't give you an effigy or restore your humanity. Even though in DS1 it was specifically stated that those were the _main ways to restore humanity_ hell, you can't even trade the smooth stones for effigies.
Not to mention you can be invaded while hollow. Which makes no sense since that wouldn't happen in DS1 since how could you steal humanity from someone who lacks humanity?
But DS2 decided being invaded while capped at half HP was _perfectly fair and balanced_
Co-op does restore your Humanity and invasions do reward either the invader or the triumphant host with an Effigy (whoever wins). I do think that DS3's both restoring your Embered status and giving you a free Ember was a really nice improvement though.
Also, yes, being invaded while Hollow is BS, and I'm glad FromSoft agreed and never put it back in another game.
I've literally platinumed DSIII and I'm pretty sure only killing invaders in your own world restores humanity.
Co-op with the small white soap stone gives a smooth and silky stone, the regular soap stone gives a token of fidelity. And sunlight warriors get a sunlight medal. But hollowing remains the same when you return home regardless of outcome.
Invading another player gives a token of spite. But that's it.
There IS a glitch with the ring of the dead that causes you to return to your world as a human but that's not intended and that ring is found fairly late game.
Edit: Supposedly invasions in the abyss do give Human effigies. I think this is because Abyss spirits are considered different from regular red phantoms
Not sure your platinum status has anything to do with this topic, but congrats, I guess? You're restored to Human form after completing both Small and regular White Sign Soapstone missions, regardless of what item is dropped (Token of Fidelity, Smooth and Silky Stone, or Sunlight Medal). You don't get Effigies, but you get free Human form, so it fills your HP back up to 100%.
I could be wrong that invading gives Effigies (it's been a while since I did an invader character), but I know killing invaders does, even NPC invaders. Invading honestly should give more value than it does, particularly considering the freaking invasion covenant gets no benefit from invading at all and has to rank up in the arena.
Never been invaded in the Abyss, but that's an interesting tidbit.
I got the sunlight medals for the platinum by mainly Co-op. From what I read the restoration to human form was actually a glitch and wasn't an intended feature.
Apparently in some patch they made it so successful co-op would reverse _some_ hollowing. But you can't invade people while hollow (just like in DS1). And I've never noticed any changes to my hollowing level even after helping with a boss. I did notice I would be healed and have my spell casts restored.
Well, upon looking it up further, I guess I'm wrong. People seem to think it has to do with tricking the game into thinking you're at full health upon completing your co-op run (making sure to heal to full as you return to your world) that causes the game to glitch on Human restoration. I really don't play Hollow much at all these days and didn't much even early in the life of the game, so I guess I'm remembering wrong. Probably because I can now totally agree with you that it's utter BS that you don't even get a Human form restoration from co-op. TIL, thanks.
I didn't really find the issues you're speaking to that bad, especially cause Human effigies aren't that hard to come by. They were certainly irritating at first, but I kind of liked the resource management it made as the game went on.
-Every Souls game in the series other than DS1 has a health penalty for death (which, to be fair, does explain why it hit hard for those who started with DS1). DeS has it the harshest (full 50% cut immediately on death) but is also the easiest game overall. DS3 just has better PR than DS2 - a health bonus with Embering sounds better, but it's functionally just that the game penalizes your health by 30% for not being Embered as well. It's less harsh at max but more harsh immediately than DS2 which only removes 5% health per death.
-Effigies can absolutely be farmed offline and easily from dogs or the imp-like enemies in Shrine of Amana. They're easier to get from co-op when the game is populated but not hard to farm offline, unlike some items needed for covenants.
-Limited enemy respawns is intended to make the game easier, not harder. Banging your head against a zone until the enemies deplete lets you make progress even if you never really got good enough to beat the enemies when they were there on each run. Actively farming Souls is fairly useless in DS2 since stats don't make THAT much difference to your character's power, so the enemies despawning isn't really an issue there. And yes, joining the CoC to make enemies respawn makes the game a bit harder, but you should only need to do that for farming specific gear, which gives you lots of practice at killing that enemy type to the point where you probably don't notice the increase much. Definitely preferable to when one had to burn a Bonfire Ascetic to respawn things.
-Hard agree with you here. It's stupid to allow invasions while hollow, given that the rest of the series doesn't. Your benefit to playing hollow and therefore with less HP and no access to summons should always be that you can't be invaded either.
How is that a bad thing? It makes the game easier in its toughest parts - some new players are really glad that they can despawn enemies in Iron Keep, for example.
Yep. Lemme guess "but Demon's souls does it too"
Yeah, but Demon's Souls honestly is designed in a way where they make it pretty obvious from the getgo that being at low health/soul form is the norm, and human form's full health is something to be earned. You also can't be invaded while you're in soul form. Demon's Souls also encourages staying in Soul form if you're trying to manipulate world tendency, so again, it's DESIGNED under the idea 'Half health is the normal, full health is a reward you earn.' Dark Souls 3 did it better, mind you.
Dark Souls 2 starts you at full health but then gradually takes away your health with each death, slowly crippling you and punishing you for mistakes, while making recovery potentially difficult if you've burned through all your effigies and don't know where to get more.
The kick the player game design principle that they embraced with 2 is exactly why I can’t stand that game. It takes the philosophy of the original, which I always thought of as “It doesn’t matter how many times you fail as long as you eventually succeed” and does the exact opposite. It’s such a strange 180 from 1 and it still baffles me
This is all definitely true, but honestly I think the biggest thing for a lot of players is the vibe. Something about it just is disjointed compared to the other souls games. The travel system, disconnected worlds, scattered art style; something about it feels like From just kind of threw everything at the board. Still a fun game, definitely my least favorite FromSoft game.
Ds3 feels more disjointed tbh. in ds2 I can suspend my disbelief when I go underground and the area drastically changes. In ds3 I'm just severely bothered by the massive cliffs etc
Great list, does a great job breaking the issues down. I'll just add that the ADP stat controlling i-frames and flask speed isn't an issue itself, but the game not really explaining that when it's such a big change from DS1 is a big issue. It's overcome by learning how it works but new players may not even realize it's a mechanic they need to look up in order to understand in the first place.
>• A lot of artificial difficulty by lots of enemy ganks
Which is something people have argued about for every other Souls game.
>• More simple boss design and difficulty
No more simplistic than its predecessors.
>• Worse level design and interconnectivity than Dark Souls 1
Yet this never gets levied at 3's linear slogs.
>• The vibe is more classic fantasy than the distinctive dark fantasy from DkS1 & 3.
DeS, DaS1, DaS2, and Elden Ring are Frank Frazetta paintings that you can play. If anything, it's only Bloodborne and 3 that lean heavily into LE DARK AND GOTHIC.
>Which is something people have argued about for every other Souls game.
Yes, but it's especially glaring and bad in 2
>No more simplistic than its predecessors.
Why is that a good thing in a sequel?
>Yet this never gets levied at 3's linear slogs.
DS3 is linear but at least the world is cohesive. Most people are referring to the elevator off the top of the windmill in Earthen Peak to the belly of a volcano in the Iron Keep. There's nothing behind that windmill. The title of the area makes me think the windmill was supposed to be built into the side of a mountain, and the Iron Keep would be inside that mountain, but it's not there, so it makes no sense.
>DeS, DaS1, DaS2, and Elden Ring are Frank Frazetta paintings that you can play. If anything, it's only Bloodborne and 3 that lean heavily into LE DARK AND GOTHIC.
DS2 is distinctly different from the other two. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it stands out. Butt it's disingenuous to imply there isn't a difference.
>Yes, but it's especially glaring and bad in 2
Ngl it's really not. Ds1 undead burg and catacombs/tomb ganks are really bad even compared to ds2. A dark room with 6 large skeletons is only matched by drangleic Castle ruin sentinels.
>DS2 is distinctly different from the other two. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it stands out. Butt it's disingenuous to imply there isn't a difference.
So is ds3.
>Ngl it's really not. Ds1 undead burg and catacombs/tomb ganks are really bad even compared to ds2. A dark room with 6 large skeletons is only matched by drangleic Castle ruin sentinels.
Undead burg is really easy to circumvent if you know it's coming, six giant skeletons in a room is rather far off the beaten path. Nothing in DS1 or DS3 even compares to the agonizing frustration of the Shrine of Amara, and if you want to include out of the way bullshit areas, nothing is as bad as the lightning horses leading up to the two cats boss in Eleum Loyce. Those two areas completely destroy any arguments about DS2 having less bullshit gank areas than then other two games.
>DS2 is distinctly different from the other two. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it stands out. Butt it's disingenuous to imply there isn't a difference.
I don't really care to die on this hill. DS3 is more similar to DS1 than to DS2, but the art style is not a complaint I personally have about DS2, so I'll just drop this.
>Undead burg is really easy to circumvent if you know it's coming
You mean like how in ds2 it's easy to avoid ambushes and tons of enemies?
>six giant skeletons in a room is rather far off the beaten path.
I can also bring up the places where 3 giant skeletons hole up on relatively small ledges, if you're not prepped for catacombs they're genuine hell, you fight several crystal golems at once multiple times in ds1, blight town has you swarmed by enemies, demon ruins has the 6? Taurus demons next to eachother, demon ruins also has a section where you're likely to aggro 3 capra demons, etc.
>Nothing in DS1 or DS3 even compares to the agonizing frustration of the Shrine of Amara,
Not even a joke this is a skill issue, shrine of amana is not that bad and if it is it's because you're trying to run through.
>You mean like how in ds2 it's easy to avoid ambushes and tons of enemies?
I'm sorry, did you just say that to me after I name dropped Shrine of Amara!?
>I can also bring up the places where 3 giant skeletons hole up on relatively small ledges, if you're not prepped for catacombs they're genuine hell, you fight several crystal golems at once multiple times in ds1, blight town has you swarmed by enemies, demon ruins has the 6? Taurus demons next to eachother, demon ruins also has a section where you're likely to aggro 3 capra demons, etc.
I'm sorry, none of that holds a candle to Shrine of Amara
>Not even a joke this is a skill issue, shrine of amana is not that bad and if it is it's because you're trying to run through.
lul you come at me with "skill issue" when you cite the places that are bad in DS1 as bad *if you're not prepared.* Like, what are we even talking about right now? You can't come at me with "Shrine of Amara is a skill issue" after telling me the Tomb of the Giants is bad if you're not prepared. That, by definition, is a skill issue. Everywhere in all the DS games are kind sucky if you are completely new. Shrine of Amara is a fucking nightmare for new players, and even for experienced ones you have to really know what you're doing to make that place anything but obnoxious. Everything you listed in DS1 is the exact same thing, only I'd argue you need less skill to handle those areas. Though, it doesn't matter how good you are, those lightning horses are fucking bullshit. Mic drop.
>I'm sorry, none of that holds a candle to Shrine of Amara
You're literally just admitting you're bad at ds2 ngl. Ds2 gives you every tool available such as the significantly improbed bows which you should've picked up an upgraded lightning infused bow at iron keep, amazing spells, or straight consumables. Even without ranged options there's only ONE place with only 5 enemies that's somewhat problematic.
I mean, if you're not going to respond to the rest of the comment, that's ok, be a shithead. I did get good enough at DS2 at one point where I could get through the Shrine without too much trouble, but I forgot my method the last time I played and it was such a pain in the ass. But you just admitted something. You need a bow to make it easier. DS2 is the only game in the trilogy where you *need* to use a specific type of weapon to make a mandatory area not a nightmare. If you have to use a bow as a str build to get through an area without pulling out your hair, you are automatically a worse game than DS1 and DS3. And you still haven't addressed the lightning horses, because you know that's the worst area in all of Dark Souls.
>No more simplistic than its predecessors.
I'd say in ds1 only artorias manus and gwyn aren't the same level of simplicity as ds2. But this goes both ways as sihn is way more complex than ds1 bosses.
>• A lot of artificial difficulty by lots of enemy ganks and gank bosses
Most "ganks" aren't actually that different from ds1 or ds3. I'd say the worst one is drangleic ruin sentinels but you have to open those doors yourself.
>Worse level design and interconnectivity than Dark Souls 1
Level design is arguable. It's nowhere near the peak that is ds1 catacombs or undead burg but it's a fair bit better than darkroot.
But on the upside you can use special items to completely reset the area including bosses making the area a NG+1 area and so on. Honestly after many years playing DS1, 2, and 3 repeatedly my order goes DS3, DS2, DS1. Once you have DS1 memorized and you've played it a lot it just starts to get really old. I actually enjoyed DS2 just as much as the other games my first time playing. But mechanically speaking, DS2 is very different and weapon durability (especially on dex weapons goes down very fast, almost forcing you to carry back up weapons so they don't break.
The views look good, but anything within 50 feet of your character and it's a graphical downgrade from DS1, before even considering the remaster or dsfix.
Lots of promises during the production were made but the downgrade came. And it’s different from DkS1 so some people didn’t like it.
Granted, it’s the one I had the most time playing until Elden Ring released
You should play it. Ds2 isn't bad, it's different, and some people don't like that. It's a 'love it or hate it' kind of game. I personally fall into the 'love it' group. The only way to know whether or not you love or hate it, is to try the game.
There is a third group that I'm a part of. I really like it, but it's still vastly inferior to the other two, and I can't enjoy it over and over again like I can the other two. Still really like it though.
You should definitely play it. It's not gated to the degree it seems like, it just has more technical flaws and deviates harder from the formula that DS1 and DS3 follow.
Imo, it's definitely not inferior. It has issues that 1 and 3 don't have, but it also has some pretty significant bonuses that 1 and 3 also don't have.
DS2 is worth playing because of how different it is compared to the rest of the series. If DS2 was just a worse version of 1 I'd say skip, but it's not that at all. DS2 is often the one I look forward to replaying the most just because it stands out more in my mind now compared to 1 and 3 which share a lot more DNA.
If you’ve ever played Demons Souls, DS2 feels more like a sequel to Demons Souls than Dark Souls. Death mechanic is actually more forgiving in DS2 than Demons Souls. It also shares more similarity with Kings Field than any other Souls game.
Here are the reasons I do not like it
1. There is a stat that controls I frames, that is not evident what it does and takes stats from other options like Vitality and Strength. There’s a reason this feature was abandoned for all other games, because it’s dumb.
2. For my xbox there is input lag that is noticeable and makes it difficult to play. Rolling also happens when your finger releases the button rather than at initial input. This also causes a very small lag for when your roll initiates.
3. It feels as though the dev team went in with the mindset of “people like DS1 because it’s hard (not true) so let’s lean into that for DS2 and increase number of enemies and ambushes and make the game more difficult and as a result more unfair”
4. You get stun locked extremely easily, with the sheer number of ganks this is even more noticeable and punishing.
5. When you die you lose total health, only recoverable via a limited consumable. in a game that promotes learning through failure and encouraging perseverance this feels overly punishing. Especially given the last two points where the game feels more punishing than the other games. Yes I know there’s a ring that reduces this effect but occupies a ring slot
I really tried to like the game but it just is not fun for me at all. Still, I recommend trying it because YMMV
> It feels as though the dev team went in with the mindset of “people like DS1 because it’s hard (not true) so let’s lean into that for DS2 and increase number of enemies and ambushes and make the game more difficult and as a result more unfair”
I'm towards the end of my first DS2 playthrough now, and this is one of the reasons I'm not sure I'll be replaying the game too much. So many of the boss fights are basically throwing multiple bosses at you at once, sometimes with minions of their own. I'm so tired of walking through a fog gate just to see multiple health bars, or a bunch of little minions.
Multiple bosses was a thing in DS1 with the gargoyles and O&S, but it never felt like a theme that they were pushing to the point of exhaustion. In DS2 I'm at the point where I expect it to happen in most fights. It's like they couldn't make the bosses hard or interesting enough on their own, so they had to rely on this as a crutch.
>Rolling also happens when your finger releases the button rather than at initial input. This also causes a very small lag for when your roll initiates.
Just want to point out that this is how it works in all of the souls games, as well as similar games like Lies of P. Because running and rolling share the same button, it only knows you want to roll when you release in a very short window after depressing the button, rather than knowing you want to run because you're holding the button.
Sure, but that's not really a meaningful criticism of DS2 when DS1 continues it from DeS, and BB, DS3, and Elden Ring all continued to work the same way after DS2.
You ever play Demons Souls? Death system is far more punishing, and there isn’t even poise which means every hit stunlocks you. Why is DS2 hated while Demons Souls is loved? Because it can’t be for these reasons that DS2 is hated when Demons Souls is objectively worse on these points yet is still loved.
I personally see Adaptability as a trait where leveling into it is accounted for with balancing leveling. DS2 is the easiest game to get high levels in due to bonfire ascetics. So if you want to do a tank character that blocks and absorbs damage instead of rolling, you are rewarded with having more stats to spend elsewhere earlier on. No other souls game incentivizes foregoing rolling in a build like this.
>
3. It feels as though the dev team went in with the mindset of “people like DS1 because it’s hard (not true) so let’s lean into that for DS2 and increase number of enemies and ambushes and make the game more difficult and as a result more unfair”
Just blatantly not true. If you actually bother to learn ds2 you'll find it generally easier. The number of enemies thing is just wrong too, ds1 has piles upon piles of enemies in areas, usually in ganks and with traps. Hell look at sens fortress
Sens fortress throws one enemy at a time at you not sure what you mean. And it’s not even remotely a difficult area compared to even the tutorial area of DS2
Level Adaptability. Game was basically unplayable for me until I found that tip. After that, it's a lot like the others, just a little jankier, so enjoy.
If you’re talking about death mechanics as the controversial changes, Demons Souls did the same thing but even more unforgivingly. Look up world tendency in Demons Souls.
Tbf that’s one of like 20. Just because it was in demons souls doesn’t make it not controversial. Demons souls is also their first game in the formula. I also platinumed demons souls so I know a little bit how it works. While I don’t really disagree I still think there are a few more
I’m curious what other changes you think are controversial then because the death mechanic is really the only one I can think of people complaining about that was seemingly a huge change if they never played Demon Souls.
Ds 2 isn't bad. The "inferior to 1 and 3" is totally subjective, but at the very least I've never heard someone say "don't play ds2 it's awful". It's got some dumb quirks, and imo it's easier than 1 and 3, but it's my favorite dark Souls.
It gets ragged on for sure but by no means is it a bad game. IMO it’s just the weakest of a series of amazing games. Now personally ER is my least favorite followed by 2. In general I’d say for me it has to do with it feeling very heavy compared to the other Souls games and not as responsive and the boss count is bloated.
Even though I say that I probably have spent the most time in 2. Now that’s due to me feeling like it had the best Duel PvP of all the games and that’s sorta the main reason I play Souls. Definitely still a great game and totally worth playing.
Because players wanted DS1 again and got something else instead.
DS2 also had two directors (neither were Miyazaki) and went through development hell, so it's a very different vision for Dark Souls and the final product is a bit of a mess. It's a *fascinating* mess, though, and worth playing.
Some of the lowest lows and highest highs the series has to offer. Majula is the best Souls hub, by far.
It's the Souls that feels the most different, it'll be weird first and then you'll enjoy it as much as any Souls. also if you're on PC install the DS2LightingEngine mod for SOTFS, you'll love it.
My biggest 2 gripes are soul memory and invasions even when hollow... I'm aware there are ways to prevent this but they seem to be temporary and it's a headache to manage that... Other than that, it'd be nearly perfect dark souls in my eyes...
I think DS2 is fun in terms of the build options with a whole new type of magic (hexes) and special movesets for dual wielding any weapons.
The movement and mechanics do feel a little clunkier, not quite sure why. Also the world is a less interconnected as others have said and, to me, less memorable. In Dark Souls 1 you end up somewhere unexpected and you suddenly realize the big picture of how the world is connected ans where you are in it. In Dark Souls 2 you end up somewhere new and you're just like "how did I even get here from an elevator trip this makes no sense!" Then Dark Souls 3 just makes a less consistently interconnected world a part of its lore.
Overall, I enjoyed DS2. Even though DS1 is my favorite for an initial playthrough, DS2 was fun to replay because of the promising build ideas--even if the execution isn't pristine.
Dark Souls 2 is the best souls game for me and its feel more like a sequel to Demon Souls rather then Dark Souls 1 so I would recommend you at least try it.
The main reason I don’t hold in the same light is because of the bosses and areas for me. The music is good, but there’s so many bosses that are trivial and same-y in design, that all can be defeated the same way. I remember fume knight, darklurker, and that’s about it for me.
Some of the areas have their memorable moments visually, but they get ruined for me in the sotfs because they add more enemies per area.
This isn’t necessarily bad but due to the way levels are set up you have to kill almost every enemy until you go through it enough and they de spawn. This makes progression feel a lot more grind-y and became frustrating for me since you progress more slowly.
It sucks, it’s not any fun, everything feels cheap. In dsr I feel like kalameet is the only boss who feels cheap, ds2 has a lot. I kept getting lost and I did not care about the story at all.
It’s not so bad if you just summon all NPCs and just reverse gank the reindeer.
I dismissed them when I got to the boss door too, that way I wasn’t just using phantoms to clear them.
It's not worse or better, just different, also it's the least connected game of the trilogy lorewise probably, it kinda feels like its own thing, so when DS3 was made they went much more heavy with DS1 references than DS2 ones, making it feel like the odd one out.
It was the first one I played and made me want to play the others so def give it a try
Yeah, I think the biggest DS2 reference outside of some weapon and armor sets is in the DLC. There are virtually zero environmental references outside of that.
The Anor Londo reveal was a hit to my nostalgia funny bone that I will never forget. I don't care it's copy pasted, it was an amazing reveal. I loved every moment of it. And considering how small an area it is relative to the rest of Irithyll, I really can't fault it at all. Anyone who was anything but giddy at seeing Anor Londo like that doesn't have a soul.
It's not even a good reveal, it suffers from the same problem as larger ds3 where everything is just on pillars for some reason. Farron/oolacile? On a rock pillar, lothric? Rock pillar etc.
Dark Souls 2 is the best one of the 3 IMO. It has flaws no question like the ridiculous hit boxes but overall it’s amazing and has really good DLC as well.
DS2 is clunkier, jankier and more sluggish. Not enough to break the game, but enough to be consitently annoying especially once you start to notice. More than 1 or 3, you will die for BS reasons.
Idk 1 is pretty clunky. It just gets a pass because it’s the “first” and because of the inter connectivity and overall level designs for the most part.
Also you can get remastered which takes away a lot of the clunkiness. If there is only one reason to get remastered, it's how much smoother it plays then the original.
I would only say ds2 is "clunkier" because of slight timing difference with combat between the two games. It's honestly because of changes to the different game engines. After the first 30 minutes, it's not noticeable.
It's not hated, it's just not as good as the other two. There are a few things that make it annoying compared to the others. u/Loyal_Darkmoon's list is really good.
It's a very different game. More than any other in the From catalog, it's a slow-paced, strategic RPG, and will feel almost turn based when played "properly" as intended. Also much more diverse, since if you're taking the "intended" (easier) path, you'll be a jack of all trades instead of a specific build around a weapon (and will likely carry many active primary weapons). This is all very different from DS1 or even Demon Souls, especially if you were good at those and used to dodging bosses and being aggressive - this is more about timing and environment and planning.
It's the only one of the series like that though - which is confusing to people. I love it to death so far (just got through Shrine of Amana, working through the dark place after), but it's like comparing Sekiro to Dark Souls - despite being made by From, it's a VERY different game.
You are pretty hard pressed to find people that hate it they just think it’s the worst game in the series… but like grading on a curve. Being the worst souls game still makes you a pretty awesome game.
In general I agree with the sentiment - I think connecting I-frames to a stat and then hiding the stat is one of the worst decisions Fromsoft ever made mechanically. I find the level design to be too “video gamey” like large sections of the game just feel like a video game and not part of a real world, it’s kind of hard to describe. I think most of the bosses just aren’t very fun or challenging.
What if I like soulslike in general, would I be more willing to enjoy DS2 then?
AC6, Surge 1 & 2 (give me another dammit) Lords of the Fallen original and Reboot, Code Vein, Thymesia.
The levels are far inferior, the bosses mostly suck, the graphics and art design is a big step down, the combat encounters are almost all ganks, ADP sucked
I’ll add a couple more - the target lock is different from the other games. It will keep the target in the camera, but will not keep you facing them. I’ve died many times when trying to hit an enemy and I end up facing backwards. It’s rage inducing.
Also, a lot of the areas are just boring to look at and feel repetitive. Lost bastille is nothing but grey blocks and empty rooms. The gutter is just a bunch of wood boards against a black background. There are 3 or 4 wooded areas. 3 or 4 castles. To be fair, some areas are absolutely bad ass - looking at you No Man’s Wharf and Dragon Aerie.
Finally, I will respectfully disagree that the story is weaker. It’s actually fascinating and much more relatable as human being than the other two games. I think the criticism comes from the game being a side story and not really mattering to the overall DS universe. DS1 is about the start of the Age of flame, while DS3 is about the end of it. In between are countless centuries, kingdoms, and cycles. DS2 is about one of them.
Its enemy bosses are more fustrating than fun. Too many multiple bosses.
Map design is poor.
Bosses are mostly boring
Life gems???
Npc spawned next too exploding enemies.
Its not a good game
I have played this game for a total of about an hour and it is clear Miyazaki wasn't involved at all because of how poorly it was designed. For Christ sake, even the graphics are worse than DS1, how do you even do that?
To name a few:
- Cartoony silly graphics
- Adaptability needed to be able to play normally
- Disconnected lore
- Human ephygies being scarce and needed to do some stuff
- Wonky combat mechanics
- There’s only 2 good bosses and they’re in the DLC
- Difficulty in this game equals putting a bunch of enemies instead of placing them strategically to make it challenging like DS1 and 3
It’s a fine game, sometimes I get an itch for it but I’ve never finished the DLC. Can’t bring myself to it.
It’s clunkier than 1 for sure, and it has some enemy jank (looking at you, falconeer’s), but Majula is an experience lol.
A lot of people have mentioned artificial difficulty already, I just wanna give me two cents and mention that you can really feel that aspect almost immediately. Iirc Miyazaki didn’t handle ds2, and you can tell the dev team were very focused on the fact that everyone said “game hard and I died a lot :(“ in DS/DS1, and decided to home in on that as the games personality. Other souls feel like the game is hard bc the story sets you up to overcome a monumental challenge against all odds. 2 straight up tells you you’re going to die, and laughs at you about it. IMO it’s important to note this going through the game BECAUSE of how different it feels.
Is it worth playing? Absolutely. But it sits firmly at the bottom of the list of souls games.
I like DS2 and have played through it several times but it’s still the worst Souls game, aside from the unfinished parts of DS1.
I’d recommend giving it a try nonetheless, you’ll get a feeling for why DS3 is such a massive improvement and so beloved by the community. The game really was a letdown, not gonna lie.
There’s some very weird design decisions.
Lots of ganking, like so many enemies in small spaces, it’s basically unfair and annoying in many places.
Too many bosses. Yes really, too many.
Some areas are unbelievably badly designed, prime example: horse f valley and the absolutely atrocious iron passage.
Some of these are boss runs, makes it even worse and more frustrating.
The best content is the DLCs. Just pretty good aside from some more questionable design choices.
Primarily 2 reasons:
- DS2 had a different design team to the other games, especally missong Miyazaki as lead designer (*he was working on Bloodblitne at the time*).
- DS2 was looking to implement some interesting lighting mechanics (*and a few other mechanics as well*), but ultimately couldn't get them to work before the release. This meant that there were a few clunky mechanics and aesthetics in the final game (*I have seen someone do a video showing what the game would have looked like with different lighting and it looked a lot better, so it seems like the textures were designed with that in mind*).
Personally I didn't like it as much as the other titles, but some people think it's the best in the series. It tends to be the most devisive in that reapect, and the fact that it had a different design team is almost certainly the reason.
Either way, my "least favourite" is still a Souls game, so it's still pretty great.
Play it... currently on my first (and final) run (ever). The i-frames are weird to non existant. The enemies are ganky af. The level design is... there. Has not really great bosses. But powerstancing is really cool (have axe and sword). Overall frustrating experience. But i am in base endgame and haven't started the DLCs yet. Heard they are better.
You will like DS2 if you liked DS1. I don’t know any people that have played both that didnt like DS2 but liked DS1.
It’s a good game, but it’s very different from other Souls games. Just prepare for that and you’ll have a good time.
There is a lot of scope to that question. The short version is that the game boasts problems and design flaws either not present in the other games, or is much less of an issue. If you want the long answer, I recommend checking out a video series by MauLer on YouTube. He made a detailed response to hbomberguy’s “in defense of Dark Souls 2” video. That will lay out objective critiques on the game as a whole.
DS2 isn't bad by any means, people just think it's the weaker of the 3... i personally loved it, the areas are very memorable and it has one if the nicest "home bases" in the series.
Dark souls 2 is dogwater because frankly it was made by the B team at Fromsoft while the big brains went to Bloodborne
They had to, bloodborne was the premier ps4 game
Watch this if you wanna know *everything* : https://youtu.be/HR3hbaKTVBs?si=S7N6qAYSZUHKiG21
Play it after 1 if you're playing them in order. It's still fun and interesting. It's definitely not as good as 1, but I still liked it a lot. At worse you don't like it and skip to 3.
It's designed to fetishize difficulty rather than designed to create a challenge.
This was usually done by shoving ten enemies into broom closet and forcing you to fight through them though sometimes they put effort into making the game not fun.
Some examples include;
Mandatory boss is on a mound of poison which you have to use some moronic logic to get rid of.
Boss has a phase 2 where just standing close to it does damage to you.
Boss is invisible.
Area slows you to a crawl while mages violate you.
Mechanic leads to low level players being at risk from invasions from high level players.
Players can be invaded while hollow but cannot summon.
Bonfire room is filled with spiders.
Enemies die permanently, preventing farming.
Repeated death lowers health significantly, making you easier to kill.
Weapon durability is dogshit.
Armour has stat requirements.
Couple all of this shit with the worst hitboxes I've seen and it's clear why the game is hated
First and foremost, this subreddit is specifically for Dark Souls 1 (PTDE, Remastered, etc.) you're talking about dark souls 2 so your post would be best fitted for r/darksouls2 or since you're comparing the games, maybe r/fromsoftware
But I'll go ahead and answer your question: to put it simply, it doesn't follow the same formula as Fromsoftware's other souls likes, it tried a lot of new things that didn't stick but aren't necessarily bad, the community just wasn't a fan of it. Iirc, Miyazaki didn't work on ds2 either.
Loyal_Darkmoon summed up the flaws perfectly. That being said, still a great game - even if it is the shitty little brother of all the other soulsborne.
Drangliec is a vibe.
One thing most people forgot is the graphical downgrade. 10 years later it is what it is, but at the day of release everyone was roaring about how terrible the game looks, especially considering how much better it looked in the trailer a year prior.
poor level design with enemy placements
levels not being very interesting mechanically, not interconnecting much at all and not make sense the ways a lot of the connect (you go up a lift in a tower in a field and come out in an area with a lava lake
shitty hitboxes everywhere, a lot of people will say that it's not bad hitboxes but that you have low ADP and thus low i-frames and need level that stat more. This is mostly incorrect, having higher ADP will def help, but MANY of the hitboxes are just straight fucked and having high ADP is simply a bandaid to avoid the problem
re-using a lot of bosses multiple times
a lot of the bosses having extremely simple movesets. Some of them just have a super basic 3 swing combo and like 2 other moves.
you get given a ridiculous amount of souls so you can easily become a *'jack of no trades master of every'* rather than needing to have a build
extremely easy, abundant and never depleting of healing consumables that make most combat a joke.
Spam-bushes. You get ambushed by a bunch of enemies, needing to run away and find a place to funnel the enemies one by one cause that's basically the only way to handle fighting 8 enemies at once. Only to run into another ambush. Rinse, repeat till you've activated several ambushes.
IMO almost all the animation look goofy and stupid, but that might just be me
there's a stupid 8-direction snap point system for moving. From what i remember you have to go into an .ini file somewhere to edit some code to make it behave normally with 360^(o) movement
There are a lot of reasons it was not received as well. However, it is still a good game and the SOTFS edition can be bought for 20$ usually. Reasons many may dislike it are: • [Soul Memory](https://darksouls2.wiki.fextralife.com/Soul+Memory) System • Adaptibilty stat affecting your i-frames on rolls and Estus Flask drink speed • A lot of artificial difficulty by lots of enemy ganks and gank bosses • Clunkier movement and combat • More simple boss design and difficulty • Worse level design and interconnectivity than Dark Souls 1 • Enemies do not respawn if killed too often (unless you join a covenant that makes the whole game harder) (credit: u/RetroNutcase) • Death is more punishing as you lose more of you max HP with each consecutive death until a max HP reduction of 50% (credit: u/RetroNutcase) • The vibe is more classic fantasy than the distinctive dark fantasy from DkS1 & 3. For example, the Old Iron King and Nashandra look like they are out of a Diablo game.
I would add "Kick the player while they're down mentality" to the list in that death is WAY more punishing in Dark Souls 2 due to \-Health loss with every death \-Limited resources to regain lost health unless you play online and co-op \-Limited enemy respawns unless you elect to make the game even harder \-You can be invaded while hollow
It’s still not as rough on the player as Demons Souls though, one death you lose half your health and the enemies will hit harder and you’ll do less damage. The game also doesn’t even tell you the more times you die in body form the harder it gets lol
Yep. Coming from demon's souls to ds1 was heavenly. Getting cursed by basilisks was like, a cool callback. Death for the most part, aside from souls lost, had little consequence. Ds2 health bar mechanic was an interesting callback to demons souls, but I see where having not played Demon's souls, the introduction of that mechanic seems like absolutely fucked design. I don't mind it but I get why some do.
Same for me, demons souls was my first souls game, I feel like it’s a good mechanic, there should be more punishment for dying than just potentially losing the games currency, it gives the game that extra little bit of tension
It’s really strange to me how much hate DS2 gets for its death system while Demons Souls seems loved even though Demons Souls is objectively far more punishing with its death system.
I think it's because DeS was more experimental because FS was trying out the 3rd person style, but with DS2 they already knew what worked and made "unnecessary changes" to a formula they knew worked well.
That’s because demon souls was fair There’s no doors in iron keep that explode launching you around There’s no dragonrider on a three inch wide path of death pits There’s no random holes of death and random holes of loot There’s no boss fights with petrify rats There’s no enemies with 0 recovery time There’s no shrine of amana period frankly There’s no black gulch shit Why dark souls and demon souls are beloved and the later games usually only defended by those who played the new ones first is because the first two were genuinely fair for 99% of the game, dark souls 2 3 and even ER and BB can really make you want to ask who the fuck tested this game? Especially when they’ve lots of foundations to build on [here’s a good video](https://youtu.be/Np5PdpsfINA?si=MsWtjVDneLJGUMl7) I know I got away from your comment a lot but it’s something that needs saying
Yea idk about having no poise mechanic where even the smallest hits stagger you no matter what your armor is could be considered fair.
The pits around Dragon Rider disappear if you hit the switches on the way to the fight. Sounds like someone didn't explore very well. Honestly, this all sounds like a failure to play creatively, which gets to my main point: DS2 doesn't let you min-max and pick a single weapon. People hate it because it requires a flexibility the other games don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh sweetheart I’m talking about the copy paste dragon riders like the one in the shrine of amana… Also you don’t need flexibility, ds2 shits out souls to you in such an amount that you can have literally everything without having to go to ng+ Sounds like someone doesn’t know what he’s talking about
Ok, yeah, I also hate the copy/paste shit – Elden Ring is *way* worse for this, mind you. As for the Dragon Rider in Shrine of Amana, not only do you not have to fight him at all (and there's not much point until you've defeated Vendrick, ie the endgame, when you should be plenty strong), you definitely don't need to fight on a narrow little strip unless you're masochistic. Like, lure him away a little bit, jeeze. Kudos if you fought him there and won, though? Like, yeah, I'm not an expert, but I've played DeS through to Elden Ring and I'm not claiming DS2 is perfect or the best of the lot. But, your post being case in point, it really does seem like a lot of the frustration with DS2's difficulty has more to do with players' rigidity then anything inherent in the game. The way it "shits out souls" is part of this. Just don't pour them all into strength and try to to big bonk your way through – learn a couple spells or miracles. Or heck, do pour them into strength, but, when you find an area "unfair," go respect and try something different!
…no dark souls 2 is shit because it’s unfair, it’s difficulty is artificial and nonsensical, relying mostly on enemy spam and bullshit multi enemy bosses wasting your time or annoying you The shrine of amana is literally indefensible because of this, and it’s not the only one of its kind You cannot defend dark souls 2 here, there’s no defense
While, yes, Shrine of Amana (and the path to the Smelter Demon in Iron Keep) are both famously and needlessly difficult, those are two small sections of a huge game. And, honestly, neither of them are harder than platforming down to the Three Fingers in ER or the Anor Londor archers in DS1. Hell, wanna talk unfair? In my first DS1 playthrough (blind) I found my way to Ash Lake early game, and had to fight all the way back up while cursed and underlevelled. It sucked. But I persevered, and I don't loudly complain about DS1 because I had hard time. DS2 isn't perfect, but it's a great game. Lucatiel is easily the most emotionally affecting NPC in the series. Its huge branching world offers a freedom of progress and exploration that is only matched by ER (but unlike ER, it's not a big empty world). Majula is the best hub in the series. There is lots of room for thoughtful, strategic combat, and really fun, challenging battles. It's also got lots of neat puzzle elements – enough that I forgive the stupid obscurity of burning the windmill (and, hey, everyone knows about that now).
Demon's is absolutely not far more punishing. Your health gets halved once and that's it. Dark 2 it just keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Your health cutting in half isn’t even the worst part, it’s when you go into black world tendency that things get bad. There’s no way to make things easier other than beating certain black phantoms, primeval demons, and bosses. Otherwise you’re stuck in extra hard mode forever
It isn’t even that bad, at least not the one time I had PBWT. All I did to get out of it was kill the primeval demon, and killed like 4 black spirits of that, and the rest of what I did was just farm. It was world 4, and I was on 4-2, killed the primeval demon located near the start, and a couple of the black spirits that appear a little further on, the rest of my time was just killing the storm beast and the first reaper over and over and it cleared quickly. Also, while the enemies get stronger in black tendency, they also give more souls as a reward, so it is great for farming. There is also an easy to get ring that will lessen the amount of health you lose in spirit form. On top of that, NG is such a pushover in DeS anyway, especially on a strength or magic build. All of this makes it much less noticeable than DS2, and overall more enjoyable.
Do you realize what you’re saying? DS2 doesn’t go any lower than half, and it only goes there gradually. Demons Souls you lose it all at once. That’s objectively far more punishing. You need to die several times in DS2 to lose as much health in one death in Demons Souls, with both capping the loss to no more than half. And this isn’t event taking world tendency into consideration.
Just a small correction here - it's technically not true that maximum health loss in DS2 is capped at 50% as one can achieve Wretch status and then go all the way up to 95% maximum health loss after 19 deaths without consuming a single Effigy. Though that takes some effort for sure. It seems like the person you're responding to is either an invader at heart, bloody good at PvP yet terrible at PvE, and ignorant of game mechanics, or they killed every single NPC there is on multiple cycles. Anyway, the more important thing here is that DS2 offers many ways on how to mitigate health loss to the point where it's actually really generous with its resources. All the complaints I see here make me laugh because it looks like half the people here missed many crucial things, and they still don't realise it even now. You're good, though.
Never actually heard of Wretch status until now, that’s crazy lol
Well, I'd expect that the other commenter would have mentioned it, but it's likely they don't know what they're talking about and have never had Wretch status when they didn't. Here's some info on that if you would be interested: http://darksouls2.wikidot.com/sin The main reason most people probably wouldn't know is that it's mainly for experienced invaders who wouldn't die much, so even they wouldn't see any effects of this mechanic. Weapons scaling with hollowing max at 50% and challenge runs with it are basically no hit runs, so there's very little practical use of this whole thing.
Wait…what?? That’s all real?
This is exactly why I stick to soul form.
While these are all quite obnoxious, I do miss bonfire ascetics. Getting the +2 and higher rings in DS3 would have been really interesting if they were in that game.
DS2 isn't my favorite of the games but damn, there were some good ideas. Ascetics and dual wielding really should've made it to DS3 at least
Agreed. Two ideas that were actually pretty damn sweet. Sad they didn't carry those into 3.
I will admit, ascetics were a neat idea and the potential rewards they could give would have been neat if they were a thing in DS3.
I was horrified that invasions and co-op didn't give you an effigy or restore your humanity. Even though in DS1 it was specifically stated that those were the _main ways to restore humanity_ hell, you can't even trade the smooth stones for effigies. Not to mention you can be invaded while hollow. Which makes no sense since that wouldn't happen in DS1 since how could you steal humanity from someone who lacks humanity? But DS2 decided being invaded while capped at half HP was _perfectly fair and balanced_
Co-op does restore your Humanity and invasions do reward either the invader or the triumphant host with an Effigy (whoever wins). I do think that DS3's both restoring your Embered status and giving you a free Ember was a really nice improvement though. Also, yes, being invaded while Hollow is BS, and I'm glad FromSoft agreed and never put it back in another game.
I've literally platinumed DSIII and I'm pretty sure only killing invaders in your own world restores humanity. Co-op with the small white soap stone gives a smooth and silky stone, the regular soap stone gives a token of fidelity. And sunlight warriors get a sunlight medal. But hollowing remains the same when you return home regardless of outcome. Invading another player gives a token of spite. But that's it. There IS a glitch with the ring of the dead that causes you to return to your world as a human but that's not intended and that ring is found fairly late game. Edit: Supposedly invasions in the abyss do give Human effigies. I think this is because Abyss spirits are considered different from regular red phantoms
Not sure your platinum status has anything to do with this topic, but congrats, I guess? You're restored to Human form after completing both Small and regular White Sign Soapstone missions, regardless of what item is dropped (Token of Fidelity, Smooth and Silky Stone, or Sunlight Medal). You don't get Effigies, but you get free Human form, so it fills your HP back up to 100%. I could be wrong that invading gives Effigies (it's been a while since I did an invader character), but I know killing invaders does, even NPC invaders. Invading honestly should give more value than it does, particularly considering the freaking invasion covenant gets no benefit from invading at all and has to rank up in the arena. Never been invaded in the Abyss, but that's an interesting tidbit.
I got the sunlight medals for the platinum by mainly Co-op. From what I read the restoration to human form was actually a glitch and wasn't an intended feature. Apparently in some patch they made it so successful co-op would reverse _some_ hollowing. But you can't invade people while hollow (just like in DS1). And I've never noticed any changes to my hollowing level even after helping with a boss. I did notice I would be healed and have my spell casts restored.
Well, upon looking it up further, I guess I'm wrong. People seem to think it has to do with tricking the game into thinking you're at full health upon completing your co-op run (making sure to heal to full as you return to your world) that causes the game to glitch on Human restoration. I really don't play Hollow much at all these days and didn't much even early in the life of the game, so I guess I'm remembering wrong. Probably because I can now totally agree with you that it's utter BS that you don't even get a Human form restoration from co-op. TIL, thanks.
I didn't really find the issues you're speaking to that bad, especially cause Human effigies aren't that hard to come by. They were certainly irritating at first, but I kind of liked the resource management it made as the game went on.
-Every Souls game in the series other than DS1 has a health penalty for death (which, to be fair, does explain why it hit hard for those who started with DS1). DeS has it the harshest (full 50% cut immediately on death) but is also the easiest game overall. DS3 just has better PR than DS2 - a health bonus with Embering sounds better, but it's functionally just that the game penalizes your health by 30% for not being Embered as well. It's less harsh at max but more harsh immediately than DS2 which only removes 5% health per death. -Effigies can absolutely be farmed offline and easily from dogs or the imp-like enemies in Shrine of Amana. They're easier to get from co-op when the game is populated but not hard to farm offline, unlike some items needed for covenants. -Limited enemy respawns is intended to make the game easier, not harder. Banging your head against a zone until the enemies deplete lets you make progress even if you never really got good enough to beat the enemies when they were there on each run. Actively farming Souls is fairly useless in DS2 since stats don't make THAT much difference to your character's power, so the enemies despawning isn't really an issue there. And yes, joining the CoC to make enemies respawn makes the game a bit harder, but you should only need to do that for farming specific gear, which gives you lots of practice at killing that enemy type to the point where you probably don't notice the increase much. Definitely preferable to when one had to burn a Bonfire Ascetic to respawn things. -Hard agree with you here. It's stupid to allow invasions while hollow, given that the rest of the series doesn't. Your benefit to playing hollow and therefore with less HP and no access to summons should always be that you can't be invaded either.
Good point, I am gonna add that. Forgot that enemies do not respawn if you kill them too often
How is that a bad thing? It makes the game easier in its toughest parts - some new players are really glad that they can despawn enemies in Iron Keep, for example.
You ever play Demons Souls?
Yep. Lemme guess "but Demon's souls does it too" Yeah, but Demon's Souls honestly is designed in a way where they make it pretty obvious from the getgo that being at low health/soul form is the norm, and human form's full health is something to be earned. You also can't be invaded while you're in soul form. Demon's Souls also encourages staying in Soul form if you're trying to manipulate world tendency, so again, it's DESIGNED under the idea 'Half health is the normal, full health is a reward you earn.' Dark Souls 3 did it better, mind you. Dark Souls 2 starts you at full health but then gradually takes away your health with each death, slowly crippling you and punishing you for mistakes, while making recovery potentially difficult if you've burned through all your effigies and don't know where to get more.
I miss healing gems
The kick the player game design principle that they embraced with 2 is exactly why I can’t stand that game. It takes the philosophy of the original, which I always thought of as “It doesn’t matter how many times you fail as long as you eventually succeed” and does the exact opposite. It’s such a strange 180 from 1 and it still baffles me
This is all definitely true, but honestly I think the biggest thing for a lot of players is the vibe. Something about it just is disjointed compared to the other souls games. The travel system, disconnected worlds, scattered art style; something about it feels like From just kind of threw everything at the board. Still a fun game, definitely my least favorite FromSoft game.
Ds3 feels more disjointed tbh. in ds2 I can suspend my disbelief when I go underground and the area drastically changes. In ds3 I'm just severely bothered by the massive cliffs etc
The artstyle was the thing I most disliked. Hollows being bright green looks goofy as fuck
Great list, does a great job breaking the issues down. I'll just add that the ADP stat controlling i-frames and flask speed isn't an issue itself, but the game not really explaining that when it's such a big change from DS1 is a big issue. It's overcome by learning how it works but new players may not even realize it's a mechanic they need to look up in order to understand in the first place.
The whole can still be invaded while hollow also sucks
The story is weak too
i feel like the health thing was one of if not the biggest reason thousands dropped it 45 minutes in and never picked it up again.
Ah, just before the Ring of Binding...
Makes me wonder if i should play 2 at all:/ maybe if gotten cheaply
>• A lot of artificial difficulty by lots of enemy ganks Which is something people have argued about for every other Souls game. >• More simple boss design and difficulty No more simplistic than its predecessors. >• Worse level design and interconnectivity than Dark Souls 1 Yet this never gets levied at 3's linear slogs. >• The vibe is more classic fantasy than the distinctive dark fantasy from DkS1 & 3. DeS, DaS1, DaS2, and Elden Ring are Frank Frazetta paintings that you can play. If anything, it's only Bloodborne and 3 that lean heavily into LE DARK AND GOTHIC.
>Which is something people have argued about for every other Souls game. Yes, but it's especially glaring and bad in 2 >No more simplistic than its predecessors. Why is that a good thing in a sequel? >Yet this never gets levied at 3's linear slogs. DS3 is linear but at least the world is cohesive. Most people are referring to the elevator off the top of the windmill in Earthen Peak to the belly of a volcano in the Iron Keep. There's nothing behind that windmill. The title of the area makes me think the windmill was supposed to be built into the side of a mountain, and the Iron Keep would be inside that mountain, but it's not there, so it makes no sense. >DeS, DaS1, DaS2, and Elden Ring are Frank Frazetta paintings that you can play. If anything, it's only Bloodborne and 3 that lean heavily into LE DARK AND GOTHIC. DS2 is distinctly different from the other two. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it stands out. Butt it's disingenuous to imply there isn't a difference.
>Yes, but it's especially glaring and bad in 2 Ngl it's really not. Ds1 undead burg and catacombs/tomb ganks are really bad even compared to ds2. A dark room with 6 large skeletons is only matched by drangleic Castle ruin sentinels. >DS2 is distinctly different from the other two. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it stands out. Butt it's disingenuous to imply there isn't a difference. So is ds3.
>Ngl it's really not. Ds1 undead burg and catacombs/tomb ganks are really bad even compared to ds2. A dark room with 6 large skeletons is only matched by drangleic Castle ruin sentinels. Undead burg is really easy to circumvent if you know it's coming, six giant skeletons in a room is rather far off the beaten path. Nothing in DS1 or DS3 even compares to the agonizing frustration of the Shrine of Amara, and if you want to include out of the way bullshit areas, nothing is as bad as the lightning horses leading up to the two cats boss in Eleum Loyce. Those two areas completely destroy any arguments about DS2 having less bullshit gank areas than then other two games. >DS2 is distinctly different from the other two. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it stands out. Butt it's disingenuous to imply there isn't a difference. I don't really care to die on this hill. DS3 is more similar to DS1 than to DS2, but the art style is not a complaint I personally have about DS2, so I'll just drop this.
>Undead burg is really easy to circumvent if you know it's coming You mean like how in ds2 it's easy to avoid ambushes and tons of enemies? >six giant skeletons in a room is rather far off the beaten path. I can also bring up the places where 3 giant skeletons hole up on relatively small ledges, if you're not prepped for catacombs they're genuine hell, you fight several crystal golems at once multiple times in ds1, blight town has you swarmed by enemies, demon ruins has the 6? Taurus demons next to eachother, demon ruins also has a section where you're likely to aggro 3 capra demons, etc. >Nothing in DS1 or DS3 even compares to the agonizing frustration of the Shrine of Amara, Not even a joke this is a skill issue, shrine of amana is not that bad and if it is it's because you're trying to run through.
>You mean like how in ds2 it's easy to avoid ambushes and tons of enemies? I'm sorry, did you just say that to me after I name dropped Shrine of Amara!? >I can also bring up the places where 3 giant skeletons hole up on relatively small ledges, if you're not prepped for catacombs they're genuine hell, you fight several crystal golems at once multiple times in ds1, blight town has you swarmed by enemies, demon ruins has the 6? Taurus demons next to eachother, demon ruins also has a section where you're likely to aggro 3 capra demons, etc. I'm sorry, none of that holds a candle to Shrine of Amara >Not even a joke this is a skill issue, shrine of amana is not that bad and if it is it's because you're trying to run through. lul you come at me with "skill issue" when you cite the places that are bad in DS1 as bad *if you're not prepared.* Like, what are we even talking about right now? You can't come at me with "Shrine of Amara is a skill issue" after telling me the Tomb of the Giants is bad if you're not prepared. That, by definition, is a skill issue. Everywhere in all the DS games are kind sucky if you are completely new. Shrine of Amara is a fucking nightmare for new players, and even for experienced ones you have to really know what you're doing to make that place anything but obnoxious. Everything you listed in DS1 is the exact same thing, only I'd argue you need less skill to handle those areas. Though, it doesn't matter how good you are, those lightning horses are fucking bullshit. Mic drop.
>I'm sorry, none of that holds a candle to Shrine of Amara You're literally just admitting you're bad at ds2 ngl. Ds2 gives you every tool available such as the significantly improbed bows which you should've picked up an upgraded lightning infused bow at iron keep, amazing spells, or straight consumables. Even without ranged options there's only ONE place with only 5 enemies that's somewhat problematic.
I mean, if you're not going to respond to the rest of the comment, that's ok, be a shithead. I did get good enough at DS2 at one point where I could get through the Shrine without too much trouble, but I forgot my method the last time I played and it was such a pain in the ass. But you just admitted something. You need a bow to make it easier. DS2 is the only game in the trilogy where you *need* to use a specific type of weapon to make a mandatory area not a nightmare. If you have to use a bow as a str build to get through an area without pulling out your hair, you are automatically a worse game than DS1 and DS3. And you still haven't addressed the lightning horses, because you know that's the worst area in all of Dark Souls.
You have to actively seek enemies to call it bad
>No more simplistic than its predecessors. I'd say in ds1 only artorias manus and gwyn aren't the same level of simplicity as ds2. But this goes both ways as sihn is way more complex than ds1 bosses.
>• A lot of artificial difficulty by lots of enemy ganks and gank bosses Most "ganks" aren't actually that different from ds1 or ds3. I'd say the worst one is drangleic ruin sentinels but you have to open those doors yourself. >Worse level design and interconnectivity than Dark Souls 1 Level design is arguable. It's nowhere near the peak that is ds1 catacombs or undead burg but it's a fair bit better than darkroot.
But on the upside you can use special items to completely reset the area including bosses making the area a NG+1 area and so on. Honestly after many years playing DS1, 2, and 3 repeatedly my order goes DS3, DS2, DS1. Once you have DS1 memorized and you've played it a lot it just starts to get really old. I actually enjoyed DS2 just as much as the other games my first time playing. But mechanically speaking, DS2 is very different and weapon durability (especially on dex weapons goes down very fast, almost forcing you to carry back up weapons so they don't break.
The views look good, but anything within 50 feet of your character and it's a graphical downgrade from DS1, before even considering the remaster or dsfix.
Lots of promises during the production were made but the downgrade came. And it’s different from DkS1 so some people didn’t like it. Granted, it’s the one I had the most time playing until Elden Ring released
You should play it. Ds2 isn't bad, it's different, and some people don't like that. It's a 'love it or hate it' kind of game. I personally fall into the 'love it' group. The only way to know whether or not you love or hate it, is to try the game.
There is a third group that I'm a part of. I really like it, but it's still vastly inferior to the other two, and I can't enjoy it over and over again like I can the other two. Still really like it though.
There's also a fourth group who will downvote any criticism or negativity about the game
That's probably just a subset of the "love it" group. The obnoxious subset.
Ds2>ds3 any day.
Hard disagree, but that's your opinion.
You should definitely play it. It's not gated to the degree it seems like, it just has more technical flaws and deviates harder from the formula that DS1 and DS3 follow. Imo, it's definitely not inferior. It has issues that 1 and 3 don't have, but it also has some pretty significant bonuses that 1 and 3 also don't have. DS2 is worth playing because of how different it is compared to the rest of the series. If DS2 was just a worse version of 1 I'd say skip, but it's not that at all. DS2 is often the one I look forward to replaying the most just because it stands out more in my mind now compared to 1 and 3 which share a lot more DNA.
If you’ve ever played Demons Souls, DS2 feels more like a sequel to Demons Souls than Dark Souls. Death mechanic is actually more forgiving in DS2 than Demons Souls. It also shares more similarity with Kings Field than any other Souls game.
Here are the reasons I do not like it 1. There is a stat that controls I frames, that is not evident what it does and takes stats from other options like Vitality and Strength. There’s a reason this feature was abandoned for all other games, because it’s dumb. 2. For my xbox there is input lag that is noticeable and makes it difficult to play. Rolling also happens when your finger releases the button rather than at initial input. This also causes a very small lag for when your roll initiates. 3. It feels as though the dev team went in with the mindset of “people like DS1 because it’s hard (not true) so let’s lean into that for DS2 and increase number of enemies and ambushes and make the game more difficult and as a result more unfair” 4. You get stun locked extremely easily, with the sheer number of ganks this is even more noticeable and punishing. 5. When you die you lose total health, only recoverable via a limited consumable. in a game that promotes learning through failure and encouraging perseverance this feels overly punishing. Especially given the last two points where the game feels more punishing than the other games. Yes I know there’s a ring that reduces this effect but occupies a ring slot I really tried to like the game but it just is not fun for me at all. Still, I recommend trying it because YMMV
> It feels as though the dev team went in with the mindset of “people like DS1 because it’s hard (not true) so let’s lean into that for DS2 and increase number of enemies and ambushes and make the game more difficult and as a result more unfair” I'm towards the end of my first DS2 playthrough now, and this is one of the reasons I'm not sure I'll be replaying the game too much. So many of the boss fights are basically throwing multiple bosses at you at once, sometimes with minions of their own. I'm so tired of walking through a fog gate just to see multiple health bars, or a bunch of little minions. Multiple bosses was a thing in DS1 with the gargoyles and O&S, but it never felt like a theme that they were pushing to the point of exhaustion. In DS2 I'm at the point where I expect it to happen in most fights. It's like they couldn't make the bosses hard or interesting enough on their own, so they had to rely on this as a crutch.
>Rolling also happens when your finger releases the button rather than at initial input. This also causes a very small lag for when your roll initiates. Just want to point out that this is how it works in all of the souls games, as well as similar games like Lies of P. Because running and rolling share the same button, it only knows you want to roll when you release in a very short window after depressing the button, rather than knowing you want to run because you're holding the button.
So it’s a continuation of the general input lag then?
Sure, but that's not really a meaningful criticism of DS2 when DS1 continues it from DeS, and BB, DS3, and Elden Ring all continued to work the same way after DS2.
I do not feel any lag on any of the other titles like I do on DS2
You ever play Demons Souls? Death system is far more punishing, and there isn’t even poise which means every hit stunlocks you. Why is DS2 hated while Demons Souls is loved? Because it can’t be for these reasons that DS2 is hated when Demons Souls is objectively worse on these points yet is still loved. I personally see Adaptability as a trait where leveling into it is accounted for with balancing leveling. DS2 is the easiest game to get high levels in due to bonfire ascetics. So if you want to do a tank character that blocks and absorbs damage instead of rolling, you are rewarded with having more stats to spend elsewhere earlier on. No other souls game incentivizes foregoing rolling in a build like this.
Tbh never played Demon Souls so can’t say
> 3. It feels as though the dev team went in with the mindset of “people like DS1 because it’s hard (not true) so let’s lean into that for DS2 and increase number of enemies and ambushes and make the game more difficult and as a result more unfair” Just blatantly not true. If you actually bother to learn ds2 you'll find it generally easier. The number of enemies thing is just wrong too, ds1 has piles upon piles of enemies in areas, usually in ganks and with traps. Hell look at sens fortress
Sens fortress throws one enemy at a time at you not sure what you mean. And it’s not even remotely a difficult area compared to even the tutorial area of DS2
2 prowling demons, 2 snakes at suegward. 4 lightning snakes. Etc but mainly traps and ambushes
Level Adaptability. Game was basically unplayable for me until I found that tip. After that, it's a lot like the others, just a little jankier, so enjoy.
It’s not objectively inferior. I like it better than DS3.
ADP
Ds2 has a lot of controversial changes and isn’t developed by miyazaki. Imo I don’t like it nearly as much as ds1 and ds3 but it’s not a bad game
If you’re talking about death mechanics as the controversial changes, Demons Souls did the same thing but even more unforgivingly. Look up world tendency in Demons Souls.
Tbf that’s one of like 20. Just because it was in demons souls doesn’t make it not controversial. Demons souls is also their first game in the formula. I also platinumed demons souls so I know a little bit how it works. While I don’t really disagree I still think there are a few more
I’m curious what other changes you think are controversial then because the death mechanic is really the only one I can think of people complaining about that was seemingly a huge change if they never played Demon Souls.
Ds 2 isn't bad. The "inferior to 1 and 3" is totally subjective, but at the very least I've never heard someone say "don't play ds2 it's awful". It's got some dumb quirks, and imo it's easier than 1 and 3, but it's my favorite dark Souls.
I did hear that! But i think i may go for it after finishing 1, i played 3 already as well. That comment just discouraged me a bit
It gets ragged on for sure but by no means is it a bad game. IMO it’s just the weakest of a series of amazing games. Now personally ER is my least favorite followed by 2. In general I’d say for me it has to do with it feeling very heavy compared to the other Souls games and not as responsive and the boss count is bloated. Even though I say that I probably have spent the most time in 2. Now that’s due to me feeling like it had the best Duel PvP of all the games and that’s sorta the main reason I play Souls. Definitely still a great game and totally worth playing.
Adaptability. It plays such a big part in that game being reviewed badly. I honestly love ds2 and would just urge people to play it and see 🤷
My only problems with it are two areas. Iron Keep, and Shrine of Amana....but those are BIG problems. Love me some DS2 tho
Because players wanted DS1 again and got something else instead. DS2 also had two directors (neither were Miyazaki) and went through development hell, so it's a very different vision for Dark Souls and the final product is a bit of a mess. It's a *fascinating* mess, though, and worth playing. Some of the lowest lows and highest highs the series has to offer. Majula is the best Souls hub, by far.
It's the Souls that feels the most different, it'll be weird first and then you'll enjoy it as much as any Souls. also if you're on PC install the DS2LightingEngine mod for SOTFS, you'll love it.
My biggest 2 gripes are soul memory and invasions even when hollow... I'm aware there are ways to prevent this but they seem to be temporary and it's a headache to manage that... Other than that, it'd be nearly perfect dark souls in my eyes...
I think DS2 is fun in terms of the build options with a whole new type of magic (hexes) and special movesets for dual wielding any weapons. The movement and mechanics do feel a little clunkier, not quite sure why. Also the world is a less interconnected as others have said and, to me, less memorable. In Dark Souls 1 you end up somewhere unexpected and you suddenly realize the big picture of how the world is connected ans where you are in it. In Dark Souls 2 you end up somewhere new and you're just like "how did I even get here from an elevator trip this makes no sense!" Then Dark Souls 3 just makes a less consistently interconnected world a part of its lore. Overall, I enjoyed DS2. Even though DS1 is my favorite for an initial playthrough, DS2 was fun to replay because of the promising build ideas--even if the execution isn't pristine.
Dark Souls 2 is the best souls game for me and its feel more like a sequel to Demon Souls rather then Dark Souls 1 so I would recommend you at least try it.
Game just feels like clunky stiff shit to play. The UI and enemy design is an eyesore as well.
The main reason I don’t hold in the same light is because of the bosses and areas for me. The music is good, but there’s so many bosses that are trivial and same-y in design, that all can be defeated the same way. I remember fume knight, darklurker, and that’s about it for me. Some of the areas have their memorable moments visually, but they get ruined for me in the sotfs because they add more enemies per area. This isn’t necessarily bad but due to the way levels are set up you have to kill almost every enemy until you go through it enough and they de spawn. This makes progression feel a lot more grind-y and became frustrating for me since you progress more slowly.
[My old timer take](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/s/bjqe6akljs), with a little history. 🧓
It sucks, it’s not any fun, everything feels cheap. In dsr I feel like kalameet is the only boss who feels cheap, ds2 has a lot. I kept getting lost and I did not care about the story at all.
It's not hated. Play it.
Snowfield.
Fair enough, lol, but that is a very small portion of the game.
It’s not so bad if you just summon all NPCs and just reverse gank the reindeer. I dismissed them when I got to the boss door too, that way I wasn’t just using phantoms to clear them.
It's not worse or better, just different, also it's the least connected game of the trilogy lorewise probably, it kinda feels like its own thing, so when DS3 was made they went much more heavy with DS1 references than DS2 ones, making it feel like the odd one out. It was the first one I played and made me want to play the others so def give it a try
Yeah, I think the biggest DS2 reference outside of some weapon and armor sets is in the DLC. There are virtually zero environmental references outside of that.
Also Gilligan dead in profaned capital
I totally missed that. That's actually pretty funny. Those are some fine ladders.
There aren't many environment references because just copying previous games is bad (COUGH DS3 ANOR LONDO COUGH)
The Anor Londo reveal was a hit to my nostalgia funny bone that I will never forget. I don't care it's copy pasted, it was an amazing reveal. I loved every moment of it. And considering how small an area it is relative to the rest of Irithyll, I really can't fault it at all. Anyone who was anything but giddy at seeing Anor Londo like that doesn't have a soul.
It's not even a good reveal, it suffers from the same problem as larger ds3 where everything is just on pillars for some reason. Farron/oolacile? On a rock pillar, lothric? Rock pillar etc.
See: no soul
There’s a dead giant/tree right outside DS3 Firelink Shrine too. It grows a Seed just like the one in DS2 Forest of the Fallen Giants.
Oh yeah. Straight forgot about that one.
Dark Souls 2 is the best one of the 3 IMO. It has flaws no question like the ridiculous hit boxes but overall it’s amazing and has really good DLC as well.
DS2 is clunkier, jankier and more sluggish. Not enough to break the game, but enough to be consitently annoying especially once you start to notice. More than 1 or 3, you will die for BS reasons.
Idk 1 is pretty clunky. It just gets a pass because it’s the “first” and because of the inter connectivity and overall level designs for the most part.
Also you can get remastered which takes away a lot of the clunkiness. If there is only one reason to get remastered, it's how much smoother it plays then the original.
I would only say ds2 is "clunkier" because of slight timing difference with combat between the two games. It's honestly because of changes to the different game engines. After the first 30 minutes, it's not noticeable.
It's not hated, it's just not as good as the other two. There are a few things that make it annoying compared to the others. u/Loyal_Darkmoon's list is really good.
It's a very different game. More than any other in the From catalog, it's a slow-paced, strategic RPG, and will feel almost turn based when played "properly" as intended. Also much more diverse, since if you're taking the "intended" (easier) path, you'll be a jack of all trades instead of a specific build around a weapon (and will likely carry many active primary weapons). This is all very different from DS1 or even Demon Souls, especially if you were good at those and used to dodging bosses and being aggressive - this is more about timing and environment and planning. It's the only one of the series like that though - which is confusing to people. I love it to death so far (just got through Shrine of Amana, working through the dark place after), but it's like comparing Sekiro to Dark Souls - despite being made by From, it's a VERY different game.
Which makes sense since it was made by a different team at From than the others. Miyazaki was only tangentially involved.
You are pretty hard pressed to find people that hate it they just think it’s the worst game in the series… but like grading on a curve. Being the worst souls game still makes you a pretty awesome game. In general I agree with the sentiment - I think connecting I-frames to a stat and then hiding the stat is one of the worst decisions Fromsoft ever made mechanically. I find the level design to be too “video gamey” like large sections of the game just feel like a video game and not part of a real world, it’s kind of hard to describe. I think most of the bosses just aren’t very fun or challenging.
It’s not as bad as people make out honestly
It’s pretty well received by players who didn’t play the other souls games first.
What if I like soulslike in general, would I be more willing to enjoy DS2 then? AC6, Surge 1 & 2 (give me another dammit) Lords of the Fallen original and Reboot, Code Vein, Thymesia.
Idk play it and decide. Idk what you would or wouldn’t like . Give it a go. It goes on sale fairly often
You should absolutely play DS2 at least once. For me, I hate the adaptability stat. If you end up playing, make that a priority stat for a few levels
I don't get that either. Why tie iframes to a particular Stat? Would have been better if it was tied to SL.
Disagree. Don’t tie iframes to any stat or level
Because it is inferior
The levels are far inferior, the bosses mostly suck, the graphics and art design is a big step down, the combat encounters are almost all ganks, ADP sucked
The camera fucking sucks, and so does soul level worst matchmaking system in any game to date.
SM is total garbage and is frustrating. What's wrong with the camera though?
Nothing inherently wrong with it, but compared to DS1 and 3 AND bloodborne it's bad feels very different and "floaty"
I’ll add a couple more - the target lock is different from the other games. It will keep the target in the camera, but will not keep you facing them. I’ve died many times when trying to hit an enemy and I end up facing backwards. It’s rage inducing. Also, a lot of the areas are just boring to look at and feel repetitive. Lost bastille is nothing but grey blocks and empty rooms. The gutter is just a bunch of wood boards against a black background. There are 3 or 4 wooded areas. 3 or 4 castles. To be fair, some areas are absolutely bad ass - looking at you No Man’s Wharf and Dragon Aerie. Finally, I will respectfully disagree that the story is weaker. It’s actually fascinating and much more relatable as human being than the other two games. I think the criticism comes from the game being a side story and not really mattering to the overall DS universe. DS1 is about the start of the Age of flame, while DS3 is about the end of it. In between are countless centuries, kingdoms, and cycles. DS2 is about one of them.
To say is clunkier is dumb, is just as slow as DS1, is not as good but definitely a great game, pretty interesting lore in my opinion
Its enemy bosses are more fustrating than fun. Too many multiple bosses. Map design is poor. Bosses are mostly boring Life gems??? Npc spawned next too exploding enemies. Its not a good game
Volcanic magma chamber above poisonous windmill mountain. Enough said.
Because it's the only game I ever played that actively tried to get me to not play it
I take it you've never played Bubsy 3D.
I have played this game for a total of about an hour and it is clear Miyazaki wasn't involved at all because of how poorly it was designed. For Christ sake, even the graphics are worse than DS1, how do you even do that?
To name a few: - Cartoony silly graphics - Adaptability needed to be able to play normally - Disconnected lore - Human ephygies being scarce and needed to do some stuff - Wonky combat mechanics - There’s only 2 good bosses and they’re in the DLC - Difficulty in this game equals putting a bunch of enemies instead of placing them strategically to make it challenging like DS1 and 3
It’s a fine game, sometimes I get an itch for it but I’ve never finished the DLC. Can’t bring myself to it. It’s clunkier than 1 for sure, and it has some enemy jank (looking at you, falconeer’s), but Majula is an experience lol. A lot of people have mentioned artificial difficulty already, I just wanna give me two cents and mention that you can really feel that aspect almost immediately. Iirc Miyazaki didn’t handle ds2, and you can tell the dev team were very focused on the fact that everyone said “game hard and I died a lot :(“ in DS/DS1, and decided to home in on that as the games personality. Other souls feel like the game is hard bc the story sets you up to overcome a monumental challenge against all odds. 2 straight up tells you you’re going to die, and laughs at you about it. IMO it’s important to note this going through the game BECAUSE of how different it feels. Is it worth playing? Absolutely. But it sits firmly at the bottom of the list of souls games.
I like DS2 and have played through it several times but it’s still the worst Souls game, aside from the unfinished parts of DS1. I’d recommend giving it a try nonetheless, you’ll get a feeling for why DS3 is such a massive improvement and so beloved by the community. The game really was a letdown, not gonna lie. There’s some very weird design decisions. Lots of ganking, like so many enemies in small spaces, it’s basically unfair and annoying in many places. Too many bosses. Yes really, too many. Some areas are unbelievably badly designed, prime example: horse f valley and the absolutely atrocious iron passage. Some of these are boss runs, makes it even worse and more frustrating. The best content is the DLCs. Just pretty good aside from some more questionable design choices.
Primarily 2 reasons: - DS2 had a different design team to the other games, especally missong Miyazaki as lead designer (*he was working on Bloodblitne at the time*). - DS2 was looking to implement some interesting lighting mechanics (*and a few other mechanics as well*), but ultimately couldn't get them to work before the release. This meant that there were a few clunky mechanics and aesthetics in the final game (*I have seen someone do a video showing what the game would have looked like with different lighting and it looked a lot better, so it seems like the textures were designed with that in mind*). Personally I didn't like it as much as the other titles, but some people think it's the best in the series. It tends to be the most devisive in that reapect, and the fact that it had a different design team is almost certainly the reason. Either way, my "least favourite" is still a Souls game, so it's still pretty great.
Play it... currently on my first (and final) run (ever). The i-frames are weird to non existant. The enemies are ganky af. The level design is... there. Has not really great bosses. But powerstancing is really cool (have axe and sword). Overall frustrating experience. But i am in base endgame and haven't started the DLCs yet. Heard they are better.
You will like DS2 if you liked DS1. I don’t know any people that have played both that didnt like DS2 but liked DS1. It’s a good game, but it’s very different from other Souls games. Just prepare for that and you’ll have a good time.
It isn't, the only people who's say that either haven't played ds2, aren't forming their own opinion, or suck at ds2
There is a lot of scope to that question. The short version is that the game boasts problems and design flaws either not present in the other games, or is much less of an issue. If you want the long answer, I recommend checking out a video series by MauLer on YouTube. He made a detailed response to hbomberguy’s “in defense of Dark Souls 2” video. That will lay out objective critiques on the game as a whole.
DS2 isn't bad by any means, people just think it's the weaker of the 3... i personally loved it, the areas are very memorable and it has one if the nicest "home bases" in the series.
You should play it but our lord and savior Hidetaka Miyazaki wasnt the director so it hits different
Cause Miasaki San wasn involved, because he was busy making Bloodbourne.
Dark souls 2 is dogwater because frankly it was made by the B team at Fromsoft while the big brains went to Bloodborne They had to, bloodborne was the premier ps4 game Watch this if you wanna know *everything* : https://youtu.be/HR3hbaKTVBs?si=S7N6qAYSZUHKiG21
Play it after 1 if you're playing them in order. It's still fun and interesting. It's definitely not as good as 1, but I still liked it a lot. At worse you don't like it and skip to 3.
It's designed to fetishize difficulty rather than designed to create a challenge. This was usually done by shoving ten enemies into broom closet and forcing you to fight through them though sometimes they put effort into making the game not fun. Some examples include; Mandatory boss is on a mound of poison which you have to use some moronic logic to get rid of. Boss has a phase 2 where just standing close to it does damage to you. Boss is invisible. Area slows you to a crawl while mages violate you. Mechanic leads to low level players being at risk from invasions from high level players. Players can be invaded while hollow but cannot summon. Bonfire room is filled with spiders. Enemies die permanently, preventing farming. Repeated death lowers health significantly, making you easier to kill. Weapon durability is dogshit. Armour has stat requirements. Couple all of this shit with the worst hitboxes I've seen and it's clear why the game is hated
First and foremost, this subreddit is specifically for Dark Souls 1 (PTDE, Remastered, etc.) you're talking about dark souls 2 so your post would be best fitted for r/darksouls2 or since you're comparing the games, maybe r/fromsoftware But I'll go ahead and answer your question: to put it simply, it doesn't follow the same formula as Fromsoftware's other souls likes, it tried a lot of new things that didn't stick but aren't necessarily bad, the community just wasn't a fan of it. Iirc, Miyazaki didn't work on ds2 either.
You can tell it’s inferior because of how it is
Loyal_Darkmoon summed up the flaws perfectly. That being said, still a great game - even if it is the shitty little brother of all the other soulsborne. Drangliec is a vibe.
It’s just different. I’ve souls is one of my favorite franchises that I’ve dumped hundreds of hours in. Ds2 for me is by far the most enjoyable.
One thing most people forgot is the graphical downgrade. 10 years later it is what it is, but at the day of release everyone was roaring about how terrible the game looks, especially considering how much better it looked in the trailer a year prior.
Play Darksouls 2, it’s great.
Play the damn game.
poor level design with enemy placements levels not being very interesting mechanically, not interconnecting much at all and not make sense the ways a lot of the connect (you go up a lift in a tower in a field and come out in an area with a lava lake shitty hitboxes everywhere, a lot of people will say that it's not bad hitboxes but that you have low ADP and thus low i-frames and need level that stat more. This is mostly incorrect, having higher ADP will def help, but MANY of the hitboxes are just straight fucked and having high ADP is simply a bandaid to avoid the problem re-using a lot of bosses multiple times a lot of the bosses having extremely simple movesets. Some of them just have a super basic 3 swing combo and like 2 other moves. you get given a ridiculous amount of souls so you can easily become a *'jack of no trades master of every'* rather than needing to have a build extremely easy, abundant and never depleting of healing consumables that make most combat a joke. Spam-bushes. You get ambushed by a bunch of enemies, needing to run away and find a place to funnel the enemies one by one cause that's basically the only way to handle fighting 8 enemies at once. Only to run into another ambush. Rinse, repeat till you've activated several ambushes. IMO almost all the animation look goofy and stupid, but that might just be me there's a stupid 8-direction snap point system for moving. From what i remember you have to go into an .ini file somewhere to edit some code to make it behave normally with 360^(o) movement