What's the official verdict on Dark Souls II?

Dark souls > Demon's souls > Dark souls 2

So I thinks it's the weakest game in the series.

@cfisher2833 said:

@robokill said:

objectively it's pretty bad. Massive slowdown, unresponsive controls, horrendous multiplayer, terrible loading times, lazy uninspired boss battles, ridiculously bad character build system that nullifies strength, dexterity and quality builds. The game is simply not very good and the rose colored glasses everyone has confuses the issue, it's just not a very fun game. I probably won't buy their next iteration

Don't blame the game because you decided to buy the potato version.

hahah this. Its really hard to believe people are playing the console versions, game looks like something released in mid 2004 on ps2 lol. On thread, the game is amazing. I can't even tell which Souls is the best cuz they're all extremely high quality. I feel like the exploration is the best of the series in DkS2. The only thing i dislike in dark souls 2 is the amount of bonefires... it feels like they're everywhere now (compared to the original at least). In demon's souls there was none so if you die you have to restart the whole thing. in dark souls they added bonefires but they were scarce enough to make the game challenging but now they're on every corner.

As a whole and cohesive world, Dark Souls 2 is far weaker and a large part of that comes from the level design.

There are no shortcuts to return to old locations, no pathways that loop around, or multiple hub areas to revisit; things that made exploration that much more interesting and meaningful, without just throwing loot at you. You don't feel the relief and satisfaction of accidentally wandering back around to Firelink Shrine.

The world design also regularly leaves a lot to be desired. There is frequently no logic to how the levels are tied together. Why, for example, is there an elevator at the very top of Earthen Peak, that goes UP, to a place that simply could not exist when you look at Earthen Peak from the outside. Why, for example, do FOTFG and Heide's look like they're miles away in Majula, but they're about a 5 minute walk from the bonfire? How is it you can't see the pillars of stone before Dragon Aerie from anywhere else but that single location, when they are higher than the clouds? I've actually heard most of Doors of Pharros and the Castle are overlapping based on their locations if you drew the whole map at once, which seems pretty sloppy.

Linear level design also allows less flexibility for players desiring harder challenges earlier. No matter what, you always start in Majula and go down 1 of 4 paths, two or 3 of which you have to unlock through various means. It was great in Dark Souls that you could skip large chunks of the game if you wanted and knew how, and move to really difficult sections, like what you have to do to join the Darkwraiths. Even if you go through Undead Burg you can skip to the Forest and beyond well before it is clearly intended.

Also sometimes bonfires just feel too close together or poorly placed. That's a minor complaint but it can be really annoying when you stand up and immediately get attacked because enemies spawn two feet from when you sit down (looking at you Sinner's Rise.)

I actually love Dark Souls 2, possibly more than 1 for various reasons, but level design is definitely one of it's weakest aspects when comparing to the first. 1 feels like they took some super amazing levels, and carefully put them together in order. 2 feels like they took some super amazing levels, and dumped them on the floor to duct tape them together.

Yeah, the bonfires are more frequent. At the same time, they're always positioned in intelligent ways, unlike the original Dark Souls where you'd get quite a few bonfires located in idiotic locations that you'd pretty much never find without help (ie the bonfire before the Iron Golem and the one before Queelag). The bonfires aren't so frequent that you don't need to usually bring two weapons as well; I very often found my main weapon degrading before I could make it to the bonfire. But I will admit they're more frequent. I don't think the game is necessarily easier though as a result. The fact that you can't block all of the attacks has made it quite a bit harder for me at least. In Dark Souls, once you get the Eagle Shield and buff it up a bit, the game becomes a cake walk because you can 100% block all physical attacks while barely using any stamina. In DS2, even if you have a 100% physical block shield with high stability, there's still enemies that can **** you up (in melee mind you, not magic).

The frequent bonfires, while convenient, just make it more noticeable that the areas are much smaller. Iron keep is like 3 rooms. Heide's is just a T. Kind of sad.

I never bother blocking and that's since Demon's Souls. Two hand every weapon and dodge what needs to be blocked. I just want a freaking decent weapon already-.- making a dex build and the best 'garbage' i have is a +3 fire longsword (im level 33). Where is mah Uchi's!?!

Yeah, the fire longsword was shit. I don't know why all the guides recommend it. The Heide's Sword you get off that Heide Knight by the tree is far better. It might be a while before you get a katana. I personally ended up using the Magic Mace as my final weapon. It has a B scaling in both strength and Intellect, and an E scaling in Dex. If you're gonna use a sword though, I'd recommend putting more in Str. than Dex.; Dex. is more useful if you're using a spear, whereas most of the swords scale with Str.

Fire sword has cheap stat requirements and doesn't need faith to be viable. Also it has a decent move set so it is easy to use. It seems mostly for classes and builds that won't get a better weapon early. If you're a knight or swordsman you can skip it otherwise it's probably worth it. First play through as a sorcerer all magic build, fire longsword was my melee weapon of choice for most of the game.

It's a good game that made improvements over the first Dark souls game

Overall, I really enjoyed it, but it's not as good as Demon's/Dark Souls.

The MP in particular just wasn't done very well. The rat and bell keeper covenants are OP as ****, the way of blue and blue sentinel relationship doesn't really work, invading as a blue sentinel doesn't work too well, etc.

and some of the bosses in NG+ become nearly impossible to solo (Flexile Sentry, Lost Sinner)

@clr84651: As far as completing the story goes, I disagree. going through the main game, doing only what's needed to "clear" the narrative was actually easier than DS1. I only had to use a guide once during my entire play through of DSII. I had to use one several times in the first game.

Although as far as the King Vendrick side quest goes... I agree with you. No idea how the **** you're supposed to know that.

Its really the only early magic weapon for Int builds. Heide sword doesn't scale as well for sorcerers. It really shines for a hex mage since it gets boosted by faith and int. I didn't find anything to replace it until I got the (wonderful) magic mace in Hunter's. I still haven't seen a single faintstone drop to make my own magic weapon. Enchanted is just stupid. I bet I'll get the moonlight greatsword before I get a faintstone. Haven't seen any katanas either. Dropbox is filled with long swords though.

If you go to Things Betwixt and gives the crows smooth & silky stones, they will give you random drops and one of them can be faintstones. I end up with a shit ton of S & S stones so it's a decent way to waste some.

@Vaasman: I dropped off the petrified thing and smooth and silky stone from the start and got 2 demon great axes. Went back later and just got a bunch of life gems. Haven't had great luck with them.

Good, not great. Probably the weakest in the series.

Just nothing memorable about it.

How does someone know to completely exhaust all talk with the lady where you kill the Dragon Rider & then go to that turning contraption and she will be there to turn it and open the passage?

I'd disagree but to each their own. I blame the rose tinted glasses. It does depend on if you play it for PvP or PvE as well. Its been out for a couple of months and will be patched due to some imbalances (IMO at least). The same applied to both of the prior games. Mechanically wise I'd say its objectively better than both prior games. People tend to ignore the flaws of the past games while they complain about the flaws in DS2.

Basically if you loved the first two though, get the game. There's parts about all three that I love the most and complain about the most.

Check my PSN: Zeviander

I've played Demon's Souls and have about 250 hours in Dark Souls (I don't think PSN tracks time though).

I have almost as many PS3 games on my shelf as 360 games. Most of them I have either played and forgotten about after an hour. Or have played all the way through and have forgotten about (Uncharted 2 being a fine example). Very few PS3 games have I played to completion, and nearly all that I have are multiplats. Even ones like Red Dead Redemption, which I played all the way through on 360 as well.

I haven't updated my GS game collection for almost three years now. I got a PS3 in January 2012. If you'd like, I can waste my time updating the awful list (there is a reason I stopped using it).

There is no official word but when a sequel to a masterpiece gets mixed reviews and not hands down bad reviews, you know it managed to live up to its standards. There will always be people who prefer this or prefer that. When Dark Souls first came out, there were about the same percentage of people who much preferred Demon's Souls over Dark Souls. So naturally, you'd have to be a fool to think that there wouldn't be similar case when Dark Souls 2 came out, and moreover, there are more Souls games to compare to, meaning that there'll be more split opinions.

Bottom line, split opinions among Souls players is expected. But as long as there are as many people who think it's better as those who think it isn't, things are generally looking good for the game.

@clr84651: Ech. That's true. I think a friend of mine told me about that.

To be fair, the first one also had some pretty obtuse objectives.

It's a good game that makes some improvements to the Souls gameplay, but has some new problems of its own and also lacks a lot of the atmosphere and creativity of previous games.

Acording to meta DS2 is better than DS1 aswell but from what I hear from many Souls veterans is that DS1 > DS2

But idk, I havent played DS2 yet

No, the level design is better in 2, Why?

Because the areas have more personality to them, they have better logic to them when it comes to traps and features. There is a better horror element. There is also no poorly designed areas like the sniper part in Anor Londo or Lost Izalith, nevermind Blighttown, which you are forced to be poisioned.

Also Dark Souls 1 takes place around a city, 2 takes place around a country. They follow different rules. You cannot see features from one area to another like you can in the first game. so while the interconnectedness is better in the first game, the ACTUAL level design of the areas is better in the sequel.

Nevermind Dark Souls 2 is by far a better written game.

This. Explorations is nigh n day better in dark souls 2, like not even comparable.

Painted World of Ariamus says nope. Ash Lake says nope. Lost Izalith Pyromancy shortcut says na. Darkwraiths says lol come on with that. There aint shit to find in Dark Souls 2, all the optional content is nearly literally as easy to find as turning right at the fork in the road instead of left. Belfry towers are as easy as having a lockstone. Secret doors don't hide anything substantial either, not one, the best items and weapons are bought or hiding in plain sight. Rat king is basically standing in the way like "COME TO ME LOL."

Stop encouraging TGR to be a dumbass, that post doesn't even attempt a rebuttal for a single thing I mentioned. It's completely inane.

agree on painted world and ash lake. disagree on everything else. DkS2 is a significant improvement in everything but the dumb SL memory and hit boxes.

Level design is lacking in comparison with Dark Souls (then again, DS had some of the greatest level design in modern history) and the bosses feel either A) less challenging or B) less varied. I think it's more of the latter but there are still some standouts that will definitely come to mind when I think of great boss fights.

Still, nothing beats the Artorias of the Abyss DLC. All three of those boss fights were phenomenal.

Anor Londo and Sen's Funhouse? Haven't come across an area in DaS2 that's better than those two

Don't forget the Crystal Cave. Seath's a pushover but damn that area is pretty.

Crystal Cave looked nice but it was really short and relied on invisible platforms to make it more than it really was

Anor Londo has some very poor level design, the level looks great, however, many parts of it are tedious and cheap. Butting two powerful knights right before Orstien and Smough and the sniper part are the worst.

Sens Fortress is stupid and annoying. Lost Bastille is better.

Never played Demon Souls but have played Dark Souls and in all honesty I found Dark Souls 2 a little better... Both are still superb games. Dark Souls 2 is so far the best game out this year.

Shrine of Amana says nope, Shaded Woods says nope. Huntsman's Copse says nope, Dragon Aerie says nope, Aldia's Keep says nope, hell even Earthen Peak and Iron Keep are awesome.

We get it, you think the first games connect more, however, the level designs themselves are much better than in Dark Souls and actually have a better horror element. You are too much of a dumbass to understand this.

Dark Souls II levels have more going on with them, and more aspects you have to watch out for, than the first game. Four bosses are affected by decisions in the levels.

Also NG+ in the sequel is FAR better than it was in the first game.

Demon Souls was GOTY, noob.

Only because there was little competition that year and it was such an unexpected great game.

@texasgoldrush: what's different in ng+?

Worse than the first two, while still a pretty good game ...

Dark Souls 2 is the strongest in the series .

Dark Souls 2 > Dark Souls >>> Demon Souls

And yes, I played Demon Souls on my PS3. So cows, stop selling smoke here.

Dark Souls 2 has much better lore than the two previous installments, better builds variety, much better online, pvp and co-op are naturaly integrated into the game, more map secrets, more treasures to find, more varied locations to explore, etc.

It's slightly easier than the first two installments though, but it makes up with a better progression pace. The game feels like one big journey of exploration, treasure hunting and mistery solving : )

Dark Souls 2 is a boss.

New enemies and many new drops.

There is a Twin Pursuer battle.

Definitely better than ME3. DAMN THAT GAME SUCKED.

This is how NG+ should be done in every game that has a NG+.

lol.

Lol at you. Dark Souls 2 has a much better lore background and story that one can actually keep a track of. That was mentioned basically in all reviews.

This

@jhonMalcovich: Just, no.

Crystal caves was awful and short. Sens and the Painted World were great, but the Caves? Ugh.

meh flappy bird was better

Much better because it's way easier. Finally, I could enjoy the game without so much frustrations. I did die a lot( I think it was like 150+) but everything was the right length with the right amount of enemies and difficulty. The combat and movement was also more fluid and the online worked better.

I'm not sure if I even want to play NG+ because of the difficulty. Can't decide between starting a new character (an archer or full caster interest me right now) or simply NG+ my Knight Paladin and somehow respec him into one of those even if it wont be ideal.

Sounds like you just suck ass honestly, if those are areas you consider bad and why you consider them so. Hardly the games fault. Lost Bastille isn't even the same concept as Sen's Fortress, Sen's is far closer to Earthen Peak and Earthen Peak ain't all that. Only thing interesting about Earthen Peak is you can change the layout of the boss's room.

That's just your opinion and it's a bad one at that. Crystal caves offers a unique challenge to the player, looks excellent, and has plenty of bonus magic-related goodies if you have the patience and observational skills to obtain them. Short has nothing to do with anything, it's the end-location of a branch of the game, of course it's short. It would be too exhausting for the player to have to go through a whole other Library.