From Software The Dark Souls Discussion Thread

[Multidirectional]

DS2 combat is good, especially in PvP, but very different from that of other Souls games.

I liked the slower pace of combat and much higher emphasis on stamina management. Made it feel more tactical than reflex based. Not saying I don't like faster paced combat in other games like DMC or Nioh but I feel like it doesn't fit Souls that well.

 

[Max Damage]

Replaying with pyromagic build this time, the moment when you finally emerge from Blighttown and find out Fire Keeper got murdered is one of a kind. Also, sorceries and pyromancies are ok so far, kinda awkward or impossible to use most of time, with exception of bell gargoyles where range really helped when 2nd one joined in.

 

[Silva]

Yearly reminder this is what Dark Souls is about:


Take Brazil.

Lords = small European part of population, in positions of power both economic and social since colonization era;

Humanity = the rest, mostly blacks and native americans;

Humans assumed a fleeting form, a lie = blacks and natives growing up learning that white is beautiful, and "whitening" themselves to look like their Europeans lords;

The fire fades = moments in history where subdued population take a glimpse at the truth;

Usurpation ending = blacks and natives throw away their whiteness, accept their true face, and depose whites from power.

 

[Max Damage]

"European" including an incel traitor, a witch that created demons, literally death, and first black/native american? We truly wuz lords and shieeet

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

DS2 combat is good, especially in PvP, but very different from that of other Souls games.

I liked the slower pace of combat and much higher emphasis on stamina management. Made it feel more tactical than reflex based. Not saying I don't like faster paced combat in other games like DMC or Nioh but I feel like it doesn't fit Souls that well.

Dark souls 2 feels like a sequel to Demon's souls. It's much more about exploration and the world being hostile to you than combat encounters exclusively.

 

[Just Locus]

[...] It's much more about exploration

Most of the levels in DS2 are a series of narrow, linear sets of levels, with less interesting layouts than in the previous games:

• Tower of Flame is a small path with one optional boss.
• Aldia's Keep starts out good but again, turns into another hallway crawl.
• Drangleic Castle is a series of narrow, weird hallways.

DS2 also prevents you from exploring 3 of the 5 areas that Majula; The Grave of Saints, Huntsman's Copse, and Shaded Woods (to stop you from going the wrong way which is the antithesis to the Souls' design which is to trust you to have the intelligence to make the right choice, not DS2 apparently).

As opposed to Demon's Souls, After completing Boletaria, you had 5 levels immediately to explore, each of these locations had its reasons for going there, and even if there weren't, you were still able to go there, if you wanted which is the bare minimum of exploration in video games, one that DS2 doesn't provide if you wanted to go explore those 3 locations I just mentioned.

he world being hostile to you than combat encounters exclusively.

DS2 did this but the gameplay suffered in a major way as a result, in Dark Souls 1 there were tons of mob enemies but the designers were smart enough to make them either A) lack a shield or other defensive abilities, B) lack a strong sword or offensive abilities, or C) low health, sometimes all three - when there is a ridiculously strong enemy and one that can fuck you up in a moment's notice, the level designers made it so you fight them usually one-&-one since that's what the souls' combat is best at, and because these aren't enemies that should be taken lightly and fought like they're just some random mob that exists only to serve you souls.

Dark Souls 2 in comparison: places huge, enemies all over the place which makes fighting them incredibly tedious to actually fight rather than interesting gameplay scenarios, not to mention it more or less encourages you to cheese them until they die which unfortunately won't be hard because their pathing is easy to exploit by moving into areas they can't move, or walk backward into doorways where they can't hit you and fire at range, for a melee character that would be pulling back until the enemies walk back to where they started, leaving one of them to fight.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

Most of the levels in DS2 are a series of narrow, linear sets of levels, with less interesting layouts than in the previous games:

You listed 2 levels made purely as walk through areas to get some where else and even then Heide's isn't a hallway, it has a branching path with 2 different bosses you can fight there. One dead ends at a covenant but it's still not a hallway. I would expect a castle to be tight hallways to fight in with larger rooms. That's not a problem.

As for being more shut off you're wrong. Here's a list of the first bosses you can fight, as in beat no other bosses before them.

Last Giant, Dragonrider, Old Dragonslayer, Royal Rat Vanguard, The Rotten, najka, twin dragonriders, Aava. So there is already multiple areas you can explore immediately if you have the know how to get to them. I also don't judge a game's adventure by it's opening level, because Dark souls 1 forces the asylum and Demon's souls forces 1-1. Which means they're both less open than Dark souls 2 which has 2 obvious paths and several non-obvious if you know how to get there/want to farm souls for it.

Dark Souls 2 in comparison: places huge, enemies all over the place which makes fighting them incredibly tedious to actually fight rather than interesting gameplay scenarios, not to mention it more or less encourages you to cheese them until they die which unfortunately won't be hard because their pathing is easy to exploit by moving into areas they can't move, or walk backward into doorways where they can't hit you and fire at range, for a melee character that would be pulling back until the enemies walk back to where they started, leaving one of them to fight.

Are we talking SOTF or the actual Dark souls 2? SOTF does exactly what you're saying. Dark souls 2 doesn't.

The door way complaint screams this is quoting youtube videos rather than a real post. This is a flaw in every single Souls game and one From should have corrected and haven't. It's one of the reasons the series stagnated.

 

[Grunker]

walk backward into doorways where they can't hit you and fire at range

Haven't played DS2 yet, but I just finished DS1 and plenty of enemies behaved in ways like this - backing into terrain etc.

 

[Just Locus]

[...] I would expect a castle to be tight hallways to fight in with larger rooms. That's not a problem.

Anor Londo in Dark Souls 1 had tons of rooms for exploration as a castle should.

As for being more shut off you're wrong. Here's a list of the first bosses you can fight, as in beat no other bosses before them. [...]

My brother in christ, You're defeating an argument no one made, I made an argument about the locations that you can visit when you first join the hub world, being more equal to Demon Souls and more than Dark Souls 1 but the game shut off 3 of those from you to prevent you from making mistakes, which is what I was criticizing, not that there's a lesser amount of bosses to fight.

I also don't judge a game's adventure by it's opening level, because Dark souls 1 forces the asylum and Demon's souls forces 1-1. Which means they're both less open than Dark souls 2 which has 2 obvious paths and several non-obvious if you know how to get there/want to farm souls for it.

Again, I don't know who you're responding to here, I didn't mention The Things Betwixt, I was mentioning Majula, I was referring to the hub world of Dark Souls 2, not its 'starting area' so You could've mentioned Firelink Shrine from Dark Souls 1 and about how it has fewer ways to approach the objective of ringing the Bells of Awakening (being 2) than in Dark Souls 2, and you still would've been off-base because I didn't bring up Dark souls 1 but, whatever, still irrelevant to what I said.

Are we talking SOTF or the actual Dark souls 2? SOTF does exactly what you're saying. Dark souls 2 doesn't.

"the actual" Dark Souls 2? First of all, most people will get SOTFS because it comes bundled with all of the DLCs (right now they both share the same price point so why would the consumer willingly pick the 'worse' game in terms of content)? and Secondly, a newcomer of Dark Souls 2 will most likely get SOTFS because of what it adds and how Fromsoft has gone on record calling it the "definitive", "director's cut" version of the game.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

My brother in christ, You're defeating an argument no one made, I made an argument about the locations that you can visit when you first join the hub world, being more equal to Demon Souls and more than Dark Souls 1 but the game shut off 3 of those from you to prevent you from making mistakes, which is what I was criticizing, not that there's a lesser amount of bosses to fight.

"prevents you from making mistakes" is a strange way of saying 'has secrets you need to put effort in to find'

Again, I don't know who you're responding to here, I didn't mention The Things Betwixt, I was mentioning Majula, I was referring to the hub world of Dark Souls 2, not its 'starting area' so You could've mentioned Firelink Shrine from Dark Souls 1 and about how it has fewer ways to approach the objective of ringing the Bells of Awakening (being 2) than in Dark Souls 2, and you still would've been off-base because I didn't bring up Dark souls 1 but, whatever, still irrelevant to what I said.

And I'm pointing out those locations are more varied than any other game in the series if we're talking purely 1st boss here. You're saying dark souls 2 is less open because the hub doesn't spoon feed you it's alternative paths. I'm saying Majula is immediately opening the game up to you and you have many paths you can take right off. The bosses show you how many paths you can take. Which is more than any other souls game.

"the actual" Dark Souls 2? First of all, most people will get SOTFS because it comes bundled with all of the DLCs (right now they both share the same price point so why would the consumer willingly pick the 'worse' game in terms of content)? and Secondly, a newcomer of Dark Souls 2 will most likely get SOTFS because of what it adds and how Fromsoft has gone on record calling it the "definitive", "director's cut" version of the game.

I am aware of how From sells the game. I'm also aware it's a massive downgrade and many people have discovered this over the years. There needs to be a mod to restore the original game's monster placement in SOTF. It doesn't add anything, it shuffles things around and increases enemies. No actual new content unless you consider 5 extra knights in the castle before smelter to be something new.

 

[Max Damage]

All Dark Souls games are about combat first, they've been ramping that up with every game. DS2 having many filler boss fights in first half also doesn't make up for 2nd half of it being straight line to finish, by no vague metrics is it more about exploration than 1.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

walk backward into doorways where they can't hit you and fire at range

Haven't played DS2 yet, but I just finished DS1 and plenty of enemies behaved in ways like this - backing into terrain etc.

The first time I fought Taurus Demon in the Upper Undead Burg, he jumped backwards and fell off the walkway to his death, though it wasn't replicated in my second playthrough.

 

[Kruyurk]

walk backward into doorways where they can't hit you and fire at range

Haven't played DS2 yet, but I just finished DS1 and plenty of enemies behaved in ways like this - backing into terrain etc.

The first time I fought Taurus Demon in the Upper Undead Burg, he jumped backwards and fell off the walkway to his death, though it wasn't replicated in my second playthrough.

All the taurus demons that fell from Undead Burg ended up in Demon Ruins. That is some genius Miyazaki storytelling

 

[Hagashager]

Question:

I beat Elden Ring back in 2022 and enjoyed it throughly, however the prospect of playing through it again doesn't excite me. The lows of ER are lows I don't have the patience for right now. I want another Soulsian ARPG though.

Is DS1 a good game to do as an ER player? I'm told DS2 is cartoonishly hard, to the point of being plain unfun and DS3, while good, definitely comes off as less than its DS1 inspiration.

I'm asking because $40 is a bit steep for DS remaster, but willing to get it if it'll scratch that itch.

 

[Elwro]

DS1 is a masterpiece and the remaster is easily worth $40. I played it last year on the new Xbox, it hasn't aged a bit.

Just don't expect to be able to teleport between bonfires.

 

[Multidirectional]

Dark Souls 1 and 2 are the good games of the series. Dark Souls III is dull and boring and Elden Ring with its bloat is overall more tedious than fun. Only retards think that III is a good game while II sucks.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

Dark souls 3 and bloodborne are cut from the same cloth as ER. Dark souls 1 is much slower and simpler than Elden Ring and a lot of players going back to it find it less enjoyable. The games evolved a lot and the world/level design is all dark souls 1 has over the later games unfortunately.

 

[Max Damage]

Remaster isn't worth $40, DS2 is "cartoonishly hard" in SOTFS maybe, vanilla is the easiest of them all, DS3 is the closest to ER mechanically. Get any of them during sale only because fuck Scamco prices, my personal recommendation is 3 if you're limited by cash and time.

 

[Elwro]

Jesus titty-fucking Christ, what's going on here

Bloodborne is a top FROM game, the most concise of the bunch, with no unfinished elements, and top quality from start to finish.

DS1 might be slower but if it's simpler then ER, then it is in the sense that it doesn't try to have everything and the kitchen sink in

 

[Caim]

Question:

I beat Elden Ring back in 2022 and enjoyed it throughly, however the prospect of playing through it again doesn't excite me. The lows of ER are lows I don't have the patience for right now. I want another Soulsian ARPG though.

Is DS1 a good game to do as an ER player? I'm told DS2 is cartoonishly hard, to the point of being plain unfun and DS3, while good, definitely comes off as less than its DS1 inspiration.

I'm asking because $40 is a bit steep for DS remaster, but willing to get it if it'll scratch that itch.

DS1 is very good, but not worth $40 nowadays. Wait for a sale.
DS2 is not "cartoonishly" hard, but it is rather janky. Just don't play a caster.
DS3 is fine, but it lacks the soul of DS1.

Thing is, with the high quality of the games if any other company had made DS2 it would both be seen as both quality work and a janky ripoff.

 

[Matador]

Question:

I beat Elden Ring back in 2022 and enjoyed it throughly, however the prospect of playing through it again doesn't excite me. The lows of ER are lows I don't have the patience for right now. I want another Soulsian ARPG though.

Is DS1 a good game to do as an ER player? I'm told DS2 is cartoonishly hard, to the point of being plain unfun and DS3, while good, definitely comes off as less than its DS1 inspiration.

I'm asking because $40 is a bit steep for DS remaster, but willing to get it if it'll scratch that itch.

DS1 is more condensed in a good way. No big empty spaces between the good dungeons, less content repetition, overall better pace, fine amount of equipment, spells, upgrades, etc.

Probably you will find that almost everything that you enjoy about ER is in it, except gorgeous sightseeing.

DS1 is a explorefag game. First time playing you will almost be always on your toes, tense because there is almost no filler, and getting meaningful rewards at a good pace.

Bosses are also simpler and easier in a good way. Fundamental designs that rewards the core skills required to beat the games.
From DS3 (or Bloodborne) they cranked up the difficulty to avoid skilled players to beat them easily, but the results of that often worse the design.

Their desire to live up to the "muh difficulty" cursed some of the newer titles. Instead of focusing in the real strengths (exploration, atmosphere, level and encounter design), they decided to expand the size and difficulty.

Bloodborne was the last great souls game, but with the seeds of decline sown

 

[Shuruga]

DS2 is not "cartoonishly" hard, but it is rather janky. Just don't play a caster.

I played DS2 as a caster to switch it up from the melee build I played in DS1. I very rarely replay games so that is my only exposure to DS2. So I'm curious -- in what way was that a bad choice? Is melee a lot easier? The only issue I recall running into with that build was running low on spells at times, especially in the early game, but it was otherwise an interesting change of pace.

 

[Multidirectional]

Magic is great in DS2 main game but game makes damage spells worthless in the DLCs with every enemy having very high resistances. That's where my mage playthrough ended and I would never make a mage again when replaying that game. That's one of the actual flaws of that game for me, not that retarded shit about elevators into lava castles or encounters being too hard somehow.

 

[Shuruga]

Thanks! I didn't play any of the DLCs so I wasn't aware of that -- I agree that is a pretty big flaw! Now I'm even more glad I didn't bother hunting around for the keys or whatever you needed to access the DLCs.

 

[Multidirectional]

Thanks! I didn't play any of the DLCs so I wasn't aware of that -- I agree that is a pretty big flaw! Now I'm even more glad I didn't bother hunting around for the keys or whatever you needed to access the DLCs.

Other than that DLCs are really good though, some of the best content in the series. Just as long as you don't play them with mage.