I'm solely disappointed by Dark Souls 2.

  • 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by xxninja666xx (423 posts) -

I feel like I'm in the minority on this one, as the game gets all the great reviews. I can't comprehend how can this game deserve anything more than 5-6 out of 10. I didn't beat it, but managed to play for 12 hours with one character (around 18, if you count all my restarts and trying out different classes) and got through Forest of the Fallen Giants, Heide's Tower of Flame, No-man's wharf, a large part of Lost Bastille, Huntsman's Copse, some of Harvest Valley and a little of Shaded Woods. It was enough for me to form an opinion on the game. As a sequel to Dark Souls 1, it feels disappointing. It was stripped down of everything that made Dark Souls 1 good and went through major changes along with the change in management, that, for the most part, are changes for the worse. There are some good changes too, of course, so let's start with them.

Some of the mechanics are executed far better than in the former game. I really liked the presence of Human Effigies as a "cure" to hollowing instead of "liquid" and "soft" humanity that could be acquired pretty quickly, but also could be also lost by one fatal mistake. In Dark Souls 2, when you die you lose your human form, but you can reverse the hollowing with ease - you don't even have to go back to the bonfire; you can do it immediately.

Another thing is that the locations are far larger than they were in Dark Souls 1 so there's a lot more to explore. They are branched too, so very often you can get to the boss by taking one of the few entirely different paths. Plus, some of the locations are truly breathtaking and atmospheric. I'm especially talking about No-man's Wharf and Harvest Valley with astonishing view on the humongous and abstract windmill. This is, unfortunately, too little to make me enjoy the game and give it a higher score, as numerous flaws overshadowed every good aspect the game has.

Now for the flaws.

Let's start with the key element and core of every Souls game - the combat system. In Dark Souls 1, the combat was very precise. The slow pace of battles and well-made-but-not-perfect animations made you "feel" the weight of the equipment, making it a major part of making up tactics against an enemy and your playstyle in general. When you wanted to be a knight armed to the teeth, fighting with a sword bigger than yourself, it was obvious that you had to sacrifice mobility for it, while choosing a leather armor and a scimitar gave the exact opposite result and you had to play differently. In Dark Souls 2 it doesn't matter - every piece of the equipment feels super-light and the only thing indicating you actually travel heavy is the rolling speed - and it feels very forced, considering you can still sprint like Usain Bolt while being clad in a full plate armor.

The difficulty - another key element of the Souls series, and something it's been always praised for. Dark Souls 1 was really unique in this aspect - it was hard and punishing, but very fair at the same time; you always knew what you did wrong and could learn from your mistakes. Dark Souls 2 is nothing like that. After a few deaths you start to notice that most of them weren't your fault, but the game's. The devs amped up the difficulty just for the sake of the game being hard and punishing, while forgetting to add fairness along the way. You often die from being outnumbered by groups enemies that "aggro" all at the same and stunlock you to death, or cheap tricks, like mummies in Lost Bastille that can explode and get back on their feet as many times as they want. There's also tracking of your moves present in the enemy AI - they spin around following you during every second of their attack animation, giving you next to no chance to dodge. And to make things even more "exciting", your character's movements are now clunky, "heavy" and awkward - he gets tired really quickly and can't dodge properly (i.e like in Dark Souls, where it was fluid and effective).

Now, the atmosphere. Dark Souls 2 lacks certain peculiarity Demon's Souls and Dark Souls 1 had, giving you generic Dark Fantasy stuff in the veins of Gothic series instead. Now, it wouldn't be too bad if it had any soul (pun not intended) - despite what I've stated above, almost all locations feel bland and uninspired. Most of the them are either a forest, a castle or something trying too hard to mimic a location from the first game. Literally, none of these made any impression on me, aside from boredom. Another thing is - why are you even in Drangleic? You don't have any purpose of being there, aside from looking for alleged cure for the curse, which you are told right at the beginning, doesn't exist. Instead, you are told you are gonna die, lose your souls etc. as if the creators were breaking the 4th wall and talking to you through the old firekeepers. Another thing completely ruining the atmosphere is lack of originality. They rehashed almost anything from the previous games - themes of locations, bestiary, boss behaviour and, which is the worst, even the characters and their plots! While playing Dark Souls 2 we meet amongst the others:

-A smooth-talking, spear-wielding man who tricks people into their own deaths,

-A knight from an oriental nation, who seeks revenge on the aforementioned man for being tricked by him,

-A warrior sitting by a gate, saying he's "in quite a pickle" because the gate won't budge and he cannot proceed with his journey,

-A depressed warrior sitting around in the first main location, offering advice to beginners,

-An undead, female merchant who flirts with you awkwardly,

-A young woman who offers you her support by leveling you up,

-An awkward, yet jolly armor merchant in extraordinary looking clothing

All of those sound really, really familiar. Almost like they were present somewhere else before. Go figure.

Last, but not least - the level design in this game is absolutely terrible. Aside from the blandness, the locations' arrangement in the world map makes no sense or logic whatsoever. The creators went for Demon Souls-esque hub world with the central point being Majula. It's not a bad thing, if executed properly, but in this game, the locations feel very disconnected from each other. They are always preceeded either a tunnel or a cave and there's no smooth transition between them. Some transitions are downright absurd, like the entrance to Heide's Tower of Flame. Who the hell thinks it is normal for a cathedral to be entered through a sewer? Not me. Another example of lack of logic is the difficulty curve. In Dark Souls 1 the locations, when connected to each other, had steadily growing difficulty that you could manage and fluently progress through them. In Dark Souls 2, however, I managed to go through 3 "branches" of locations, only to find one in each "branch" (usually the third one in order) to be too difficult for me to progress, as the enemies simply one-shotted me or there was too much bulls*** for me to cope with (I'm looking at you, Lost Bastille). It frustrated me to the point I quit playing for good.

#2 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

Yeah... D Souls was never fair or difficult.

#3 Posted by xxninja666xx (423 posts) -

Yeah... D Souls was never fair or difficult.

That reply was kinda expected to see. I agree on that partially, they aren't as difficult as they are told to be, but they are difficult compared to most games from the recent years. I'd say it has the difficulty of games from the late 90s, which isn't bad for someone raised on them. As for the fairness - of course it's not perfectly, 100% fair, but it's fair for the most part. As I said, you always knew why you died and could easily avoid it next time simply by not repeating the same thing you did the last time.

#4 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

Yes you know how you died but was there anything you could do about it ? at the moment was death inevetable ?

Say you screwed up your build, just enought to let you beat easy enemies but also enough to get you creamed by a boss ?

Thats called a Strategic Failure and its enough to put it behind the many games you think aren't as Difficult. D Souls is two things.... Extremely Complex and Sadistically Punishing.

#5 Edited by xxninja666xx (423 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

Yes you know how you died but was there anything you could do about it ? at the moment was death inevetable ?

Say you screwed up your build, just enought to let you beat easy enemies but also enough to get you creamed by a boss ?

Thats called a Strategic Failure and its enough to put it behind the many games you think aren't as Difficult. D Souls is two things.... Extremely Complex and Sadistically Punishing.

So basically it's a "git gud" comment, just put in a more normal way, amirite? You are probably one of those people who thinks that if someone doesn't like Dark Souls, he's just bad at it. Probably not going to work either way, since you show clear signs of being a fanboy, but I suggest you watch this video, all 50 minutes of it. The author played far more than me and yet he managed to prove all the points I made in my first post, as well as many others, and give a clear evidence in form of gameplay fragments. He also has a totally different build from mine (his being a hexer and mine being a strength-based warrior), so his critique isn't made out of a "strategic failure", as you call it.

#6 Posted by SovietsUnited (1815 posts) -

I have mixed feelings about it. Dark Souls 2 lacks the heart, the dreary atmosphere and the environmental storytelling that made King's Field, Shadow Tower and Demon's/Dark Souls so memorable; it feels like a total outsider. The world design is significantly worse, nothing feels very connected, there's an overabundance of NPC's which have no arc and serve only as a means of upgrading/buying stuff. But enough of that, I wrote a whole review on it

Still, the gameplay is indeed better than ever. it's not nearly as fair as Dark Souls, but it's still very immersive. Even if it is inferior its predecessor, it's still a lot better than most of the games released in the past year.

#7 Edited by xxninja666xx (423 posts) -

But enough of that, I wrote a whole review on it

Care to share it with me? Or is it an official review that I can easily find on the site?

Still, the gameplay is indeed better than ever. it's not nearly as fair as Dark Souls, but it's still very immersive. Even if it is inferior its predecessor, it's still a lot better than most of the games released in the past year.

That only shows what the gaming market has become, if DS2 is "better" than any of recently released games. As for the gameplay, I didn't feel immersed at all. It felt like a tedious chore to get from one location to the other and every time I died and got reborn at a bonfire, the first thought in my head wasn't "All right! Let's try again and kick their butt this time!", as it was with DS1, but rather "I have to go through all this s*** all over again?! Really?".

#8 Posted by SovietsUnited (1815 posts) -

Care to share it with me? Or is it an official review that I can easily find on the site?

It's just a user review, here

#9 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@xxninja666xx

lol. I'm not a fan boy. I don't like any RPGs. ;). Besides even the Easy RPGs like Mass Effect are not fair. D Souls hides this behind layer after layer after layer of Statistical crap.

#10 Edited by xxninja666xx (423 posts) -

@SovietsUnited

I may sound biased, but the rating, as well as the conclusion, are a little inadequate to what has been written in the review itself. It makes you feel like it's a pretty mediocre game, and yet you say it's a "must play" and you give it a 7/10. No offense of course.

#11 Edited by SovietsUnited (1815 posts) -

@xxninja666xx said:

I may sound biased, but the rating, as well as the conclusion, are a little inadequate to what has been written in the review itself. It makes you feel like it's a pretty mediocre game, and yet you say it's a "must play" and you give it a 7/10. No offense of course.

None taken; I guess it does give the impression that I slammed the game, but I wanted to recommend it in some way because really it deserves to be played, especially by the uninitiated.

#12 Edited by maynardburger (187 posts) -

Feels a lot like any of the other two Souls games to me. Not different enough for me to understand how you could like the others and not this one, unless you're getting burnt out on the Souls formula.

#13 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

Maybe you're just not cut out to be a Hardcore Masochist.... :p altgough I think thats a good thing.

#14 Posted by SovietsUnited (1815 posts) -

Feels a lot like any of the other two Souls games to me. Not different enough for me to understand how you could like the others and not this one, unless you're getting burnt out on the Souls formula.

Different director, different approach, different feel

#15 Posted by maynardburger (187 posts) -

@maynardburger said:

Feels a lot like any of the other two Souls games to me. Not different enough for me to understand how you could like the others and not this one, unless you're getting burnt out on the Souls formula.

Different director, different approach, different feel

Approach and 'feel' aren't really different, though. Its undeniably a Souls game just like the first two.

Its like people who like Demon's but not Dark or vice versa. I don't get it. They're all very similar games.

#16 Posted by SovietsUnited (1815 posts) -

@SovietsUnited said:

@maynardburger said:

Feels a lot like any of the other two Souls games to me. Not different enough for me to understand how you could like the others and not this one, unless you're getting burnt out on the Souls formula.

Different director, different approach, different feel

Approach and 'feel' aren't really different, though. Its undeniably a Souls game just like the first two.

Its like people who like Demon's but not Dark or vice versa. I don't get it. They're all very similar games.

Focus on the player rather than the world, deliberately hard rather than fair, uncharacteristically lackluster world design etc.

#17 Edited by syztem (7702 posts) -

Dark Souls 2 was the easiest of the three.

Didn't even have any cheesy trial-and-error bosses like Bed of Chaos of Dragon God. Everything was dodge -> attack. Even the standard "poison area" was a joke compared to Demon's Souls' world 5 or Blighttown. Easy areas, easy bosses, more bonfires, more healing items...

Can even join a covenant to babysit you against invasions this time around.

#18 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

I thought it was as good but in different ways.

#19 Posted by cooolio (433 posts) -

The fact that you assumed that Lulu was a Dark Souls fanboy is hilarious. This is a person who is always pissing all over the Souls games.

#20 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@cooolio

I know Right ?

I was deeply offended ! ;)

thanks for having my back.

#21 Edited by Randolph (10423 posts) -

None of the Souls games are hard. They are just very punishing of even the smallest error. As far as challenge goes, they are actually quite easy games, and boil down to a simplistic test of patience that happens to have a stunningly good world design, although many people have told me that world design part was not up to snuff in this new one. I wrote off Dark Souls after the first game, so I haven't even bothered with the second at all.

I can't be assed to try to pretend the emperor isn't naked anymore. From Software is a mediocre developer, always has been, always will be.

#22 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@Randolph

I heard that Naked Emperor Phrase in LA Noire. .. LOL. It was pretty funny there too.

#23 Posted by Jacanuk (3856 posts) -

Feels a lot like any of the other two Souls games to me. Not different enough for me to understand how you could like the others and not this one, unless you're getting burnt out on the Souls formula.

Spot on Dark Souls 2 is exactly the same as Demon Souls and the first Dark souls.

And i dont blame people who are disappointed, i have played through all of them and particular in Dark Souls 2 i was surprised to see how much they just took from DS1 and alter a bit, that was disapointing.

Also DS1-2 demonsouls are not hard, its all about how fast you are able to see patterns and utilized the patterns and game mechanics

#24 Edited by Ariabed (1101 posts) -

Lulu lulu is the RPG Anti Christ everybody knows that ;)

#25 Posted by Pffrbt (6449 posts) -

@xxninja666xx: I agree. I'm enjoying the game so far and it does have some improvements over previous games, but the soul of the game is completely missing. It's pretty, but bland and uninteresting, there's no creativity. There's definitely a feeling of some parts being difficult for the sake of being difficult instead of being fair.

I'm really looking forward to Project Beast, I hope it's Demon's Souls 2. Every screenshot I've seen of the game is just soaking in atmosphere.

#26 Posted by Torres_ (59 posts) -

There's definitely something missing this time. The game doesn't provide really any surprising moments or "wow" experiences. Like many said, it feels quite bland. It's pretty solid throughout the game but it's missing all the high notes. The bosses are all a bit boring, none really stands out. The world is much more uninteresting and less atmospheric. There are some interesting areas but can't even be compared to Anor Londo/Duke's Archives or Dark Root Garden/Basin, for example. I think they should have used the first games world and areas as a much more obvious base for the second game. It would have been really cool to recognize the areas but with all the changes that had come through time and kingdoms. The game seems to miss all the potential of a sequel, even though the lore continues the first ones.

There are also many design flaws and real annoyances. It seems that many of the more difficult parts are made of the same elements. Enemies attacking in close range while others sniping at you from afar. Very rarely I felt that Demon's or Dark Souls were being unfair, but this time I have. Most of the enemies are super aggressive so that ones you get hit and caught in a stun lock, there's not much you can do. And often there's not just one but two, three or four enemies constantly attacking at you. For example, those stone soldiers in Drangleic Castle, ridiculous.

But still, even with all it's faults, I truly enjoyed playing DkS2. It's still one of the few games that gives you that fantastic feeling when you finally beat a boss that kicked your ass multiple times, or when you beat an invader in a humiliating fashion. I like how you can speed travel right from the beginning and how merchants and blacksmiths are far more accessible. No need to go through that same area AGAIN to strengthen your weapon or buy some more arrows etc.

Dark Souls 2 is overshadowed by it's own legacy. If it were the first Souls games, it would get raving reviews and would easily be game of the year. But the bar is always set higher for a sequel. It's hard to better from near perfection, and although a great game, it must be regarded as a slight disappointment.

..Pardon my language. But I guess it's better than writing in Finnish. :P

#27 Posted by maynardburger (187 posts) -

@maynardburger said:

@SovietsUnited said:

@maynardburger said:

Feels a lot like any of the other two Souls games to me. Not different enough for me to understand how you could like the others and not this one, unless you're getting burnt out on the Souls formula.

Different director, different approach, different feel

Approach and 'feel' aren't really different, though. Its undeniably a Souls game just like the first two.

Its like people who like Demon's but not Dark or vice versa. I don't get it. They're all very similar games.

Focus on the player rather than the world, deliberately hard rather than fair, uncharacteristically lackluster world design etc.

I haven't noticed any of these things. World/level design is fine(and beautiful). Game seems just as challenging as previous ones(and just as fair/not fair as each game has its cheap moments). And I don't know what you mean by focus on player, not the world.

#28 Posted by Jeager_Titan (945 posts) -

Damn. I just started playing the game. Also I do not like the health being decreased everytime you die. Its just unfair.

#29 Edited by Torres_ (59 posts) -

@jeager_titan: It's really not a big deal. I never had any problems with having enough Human Effigies at my disposal. If you find yourself at trouble and your health is cut to half, just use an Effigy and summon some help. Another great way is using your Soapstone and help others as a phantom. You get to learn the level and you gain souls while doing it. Plus, if you manage to help beating the boss, you'll get your humanity restored. This works only once though, so once you get your humanity restored, you should make the best use of it.

#30 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@Jeager_Titan

Well..... Stop Dying ! ;)

I'm just joking, personally I wouldn't mind it at all, if only the game had a Vampire mechanic (Like MGR).

#31 Edited by maynardburger (187 posts) -

I admit, that just like with Demon's Souls, losing health every death made me a bit depressed.

Yes, you get items that restore your humanity, but I get scared of using them. Death is so common in these games I fear I'd run out of them very quickly if I used them regularly. I could use them sparsely, but when is a good time? How do I know that 'this time' will be the time I wont die from a tough spot or some silly mistake? That extra health helps, but death often comes brutally and quickly, where even a full bar of health wouldn't change anything.

However, there are items in both these games that can alleviate the problem somewhat.....so don't fret too much.

#32 Edited by Jeager_Titan (945 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu But its hard. hehe

@Toress_ Played as a swords man first. Got my arse handed to me. Then immediately quit the game and strates playing as the knight. Hope everything goes well. Still not even close to the first boss now.

#33 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

@jeager_titan: In Heide's tower of Flame is a ring that makes it so you can only lose up to 25% of your health. Seems like a small thing, but trust me, it works wonders.

#34 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer

Does the ring also change the percentage of health taken per death or does it keep going at 10% Intervals ?

#35 Posted by syztem (7702 posts) -

The ring slows the rate at which your health is taken.

You can also just kill a boss in co-op and it turns you human again. No need for Effigies.

#36 Posted by Principian (1 posts) -

-A smooth-talking, spear-wielding man who tricks people into their own deaths.

Only, he kinda helps you unlike Patches and also has someone out there hunting him down.

-A knight from an oriental nation, who seeks revenge on the aforementioned man for being tricked by him.

Only, it's kinda hinted that he could be the evil guy. Also, he's not from an oriental nation.

-A warrior sitting by a gate, saying he's "in quite a pickle" because the gate won't budge and he cannot proceed with his journey.

I'll admit, this one definitely was Siegmeyer 2.0.

-A depressed warrior sitting around in the first main location, offering advice to beginners.

Crestfallen warrior has been in all Souls game thus far but this iteration was different because he's far more friendly and actually has a plot. He actually gains hope once you fill up Majula with more people and thanks you for teaching him. Not to mention he's a covenant leader and gives you items.

-An undead, female merchant who flirts with you awkwardly.

Pretty sure the hag doesn't flirt with you...

-An awkward, yet jolly armor merchant in extraordinary looking clothing.

Yeah and he's voiced by the same person who voiced Domhnall. This is certainly Domhnall 2.0.

The Souls games have all taken characters from one another. Demon's Souls even took a lot from the King's Field series (its predecessor). Why you thought DkS2 would be any different is beyond me but it's filled with many new characters as well from Lucatiel, Rosabeth, Straid, Gilligan, Lenigrast, McDuff, Chloanne to Maughlin, a weary anxious trader who grows increasingly more confident and arrogant the more you buy from him.

And bad level design? I can only conclude you're playing a different game here. It's a far improvement over Dark Souls 1 where we had Lost Izalith, Qualaag's Domain, Blighttown and The Tomb of Giants which were all terribly designed areas, finished with a completely rushed and cheap boss (Bed of Izalith). Every area in Dark Souls 2 is actually steadily designed and while the transition to them may not be the same in terms of design, that hardly matters. You can argue transitions are bad but the areas themselves are not and are far superior to most areas from the first game. None of the areas in DkS2 feel rushed or cheap.

Your gripe with the "new" combat is that it feels faster (lol). Then you say they rehashed bosses and areas. The only rehashed boss I saw was the Old Dragonslayer.

No one was expecting a far departure from the series. If Dark Souls was Demon's Souls 2.0 then Dark Souls 2 is most certainly Demon's Souls 3.0 but I find most of your criticisms lacking. Story and character-wise, I think Dark Souls was better but Dark Souls 2 has the far better area designs and bosses.

And I say all this as someone who thinks Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen is better than all the Souls games thus far so you can be damned certain I'm no blind fan boy of the Souls series. I think DkS2 actually improved upon the flaws of the first game.

#37 Edited by xxninja666xx (423 posts) -

Crestfallen warrior has been in all Souls game thus far but this iteration was different because he's far more friendly and actually has a plot. He actually gains hope once you fill up Majula with more people and thanks you for teaching him. Not to mention he's a covenant leader and gives you items.

That doesn't justify his creation, really. It could have been just anybody, and yet, From chose to throw a crestfallen warrior once again.

Pretty sure the hag doesn't flirt with you...

Then what's with her calling you "love" and offering you bargains and special items, just because you are here to meet her. If that's not flirting, then I don't know what it is.

None of the areas in DkS2 feel rushed or cheap.

Heide's Tower of Flame and its 4-minute fitness trail to the boss says hello. Also, The Lost Bastille with the biggest amount of bulls*** concentrated in one place (enemy placement is also a part of level design).

You can argue transitions are bad but the areas themselves are not and are far superior to most areas from the first game.

The areas are really unimpressive compared to DS1. The best I could think of the more sophisticated areas of DS2 was "oh, this looks kinda cool", while in DS1 it was "wow!" for most of them. But looks like it's just a matter of taste.

Then you say they rehashed bosses and areas. The only rehashed boss I saw was the Old Dragonslayer.

How about Rat Authority, that's just a copy-paste of fight with Sif, or the Pursuer who behaves exactly like Ornstein (charging through the arena, fast swing combos and trying to impale you, attack you with some kind of magic, while you're impaled, and then throwing you down to the ground), or even Belfry Gargoyles, where the only difference is in the number of said gargoyles? And it's not just bosses. Most of the enemies are reskinned versions of ones from DS1. Here are few examples:

-Undead from Shaded Woods are rehashes of Ghouls from Blighttown (they even attack you with impaled corpses, like Ghouls used to)

-Old Knights are Stone Guardians from Darkroot Garden mixed with weapon variety of Black Knights

-Heide Knights are Black Knights

-Royal Swordsmen are Hollow Warriors (the ones with crossbows in Undead Burg/Parish to be precise)

-Sickle-wielding Giants from Huntsman's Copse are Barbarians from Blighttown

C'mon, that's just pure ignorance you're showing here.

#38 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Believe it halves the amount of health lost. So... 5% intervals I believe.

#39 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer

Interesting....... *que ominous music*

#40 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: It actually works wonders for exploration. you lose so much less health and it makes things a bit easier.

#41 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer

There was a ring just like the in Final Fantasy. But there were multiple kinds. Fire Rings, lightning Rings, Water Rings and then the generic normal Magic and Physical Damage Rings.

Ontop of that they had Bracelets that extend health ontop of that the Bracelets have a level up system of their own. Actually all the Accsesories did....

#42 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Not in the original Final Fantasy. At least, it wasn't that complex. not that I remember, anyways.

Also what does that have anything to do with Dark Souls II?

#43 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer

I just find the simularities interesting. ;).

#44 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Good for you? Of course there'll be similarities, RPGs tend to have a lot of common qualities between them.

#45 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer

Indeed. One can even Extract a general formula from all of them..... And then make threads about how bad they are. Why would a person do such a thing ? ;) *wink*

#46 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: I should have known it would turn into this.

#47 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer

I'm the SNIPER of Anti-Role Playing.

But to be fair its a very ubiquitous concept.... All roads lead back to role playing.

#48 Edited by MethodManFTW (25485 posts) -

I would disagree with your points.. I loved Dark Souls and Demon's Souls and I am having an absolute blast with Dark Souls 2. Not every game is for every person though, that is for sure.

#49 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9722 posts) -

@MethodManFTW

The thing I don't get his why such tiny differences get blowm so out of proportion.

#50 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Because gamers can be nit picky bastards. You did see that topic about invisible legs in FPS's, right?