|
Post by Super Orbus on May 11, 2014 0:24:04 GMT -5
After the poorly designed travesty that was Dark Souls 2, I couldn't care less. That's definitely a unique perspective.
|
|
famicommunist
Junior Member
That's a pretty nasty tan you have there SNES-tan.
Posts: 60
|
Post by famicommunist on May 11, 2014 0:28:23 GMT -5
After the poorly designed travesty that was Dark Souls 2, I couldn't care less. That's definitely a unique perspective. The level design was really bad. It felt like a 12 year old's kaizo Mario ROM hack. They seemed to also go with the "lolsohard" approach after it became a meme. The difficulty in the first 2 games was a side effect of how it was designed, it was not outright and in your face about it.
|
|
|
Post by Super Orbus on May 11, 2014 0:36:22 GMT -5
I think the general consensus is Dark Souls 2 is actually easier, so I'm not sure where that's coming from.
I'll agree it's probably not as tightly crafted as Dark Souls was, but calling it a travesty seems silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 0:37:13 GMT -5
Dark Souls II is far and away the easiest game in the series. Weird to hear anyone saying otherwise.
|
|
famicommunist
Junior Member
That's a pretty nasty tan you have there SNES-tan.
Posts: 60
|
Post by famicommunist on May 11, 2014 0:40:52 GMT -5
Dark Souls II is far and away the easiest game in the series. Weird to hear anyone saying otherwise. No, it is the easiest. I meant to say they went with the "lolsohard" design and intentionally tried to make it really hard, but it turned out the exact opposite. Mainly because it was really cheaply set up as far as enemy placement goes. It is by far the easiest game they have made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 1:30:11 GMT -5
I think all three games have plenty of instances of ambushing you without any warning. People like to say that the Souls series is very old-school in some of its design philosophies, and stage / enemy placement memorization was definitely a key strategy for playing titles from that era.
I mean the worst that can happen is you die and have to come back. Now you know what to expect in that area. Maybe it would seem like too much trouble for some people. That's fair. It doesn't really bother me here, though.
|
|
famicommunist
Junior Member
That's a pretty nasty tan you have there SNES-tan.
Posts: 60
|
Post by famicommunist on May 11, 2014 1:35:24 GMT -5
I think all three games have plenty of instances of ambushing you without any warning. People like to say that the Souls series is very old-school in some of its design philosophies, and stage / enemy placement memorization was definitely a key strategy for playing titles from that era. I mean the worst that can happen is you die and have to come back. Now you know what to expect in that area. Maybe it would seem like too much trouble for some people. That's fair. It doesn't really bother me here, though. It bothers me because it seems to be an overly recurring theme in DaSII. Most of the game seems to have that design philosophy, but it's flawed in the game because unlike the first two games, you can run past everything with no real consequence. In the other games, if you try to run past everything, you'll get rekd' really quickly by the enemy's 1337 Quakepro skillz.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 1:37:09 GMT -5
Hmm. I don't remember there being many places where you could run past enemies without it biting you, quite literally, on the ass. Good job on being skilled enough to pull that kind of thing off consistently, though.
|
|
famicommunist
Junior Member
That's a pretty nasty tan you have there SNES-tan.
Posts: 60
|
Post by famicommunist on May 11, 2014 1:40:53 GMT -5
Hmm. I don't remember there being many places where you could run past enemies without it biting you, quite literally, on the ass. Good job on being skilled enough to pull that kind of thing off consistently, though. I was playing the PC version with keyboard movement so maybe that helped? It's not a godawful game, but I really didn't like it, and I still stand by the fact that this game seems to take a "Kaizo Mario" approach a lot more than the other games. It was a subpar experience at best, and it really isn't a true Souls game for me.
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on May 11, 2014 4:30:21 GMT -5
My biggest complaint with Dark Souls 2 is that the boss design is fucking awful. It's like they weren't even trying! Oh look, it's an armored dude with a hammer. Oh look, it's easy mode Ornstein. Oh look, it's the gargoyles again, except with more them. Oh look, finally a neat boss! It has two different torsos with different weapons and oh wait is it dead already? There are very few bosses that were as fun and inspired as the encounters in Demon's and Dark Souls.
Also, the game, as mentioned, leans too heavily on "gotcha" traps and mob fights. Both things have their place in a souls game, of course! When a dragon jumps out and incinerates you or a treasure chest grows limbs and eats your face, that's great. When you have to fight a large group of enemies on tricky terrain, that's great... to an extent. But every time you turn around in Dark Souls 2 you're encountering a horde of enemies or an ambush. It's like jump scares... they're effective when spaced out carefully, but if you overuse them it becomes predictable and dull. That definitely applies to a lot of the level design in Dark Souls 2.
Mechanically, Dark Souls 2 is tuned well and I really like a lot of the tweaks and additions. But the level and boss design really is a significant step backwards from Dark Souls 1 and Demon's Souls.
|
|
|
Post by caoslayer on May 11, 2014 4:42:19 GMT -5
I Agree on the bland level design.
About unadvoidable deaths, DS1 still had the catwalk with the spear shooting knights, I wouldn't even through of doing a no death in DS1.
The only realy stupid trap of DS2 is when you open the door of Rosabeth... I was expecting the basilick but not the mob behind you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 5:55:39 GMT -5
It is only really the boss and enemy design that I felt less impressed by- the afforementioned "here's a big knight...again...no wait it looks to be TWO BIG KNIGHTS!" thing. Whilst I don't think any locations were as inspiring as Dark Souls at its best there are still ones like the Dragon Aerie place that were very impressive. The difficulty I find to be a little more uneven- certain bosses come across like they were designed with a strong emphasis on summoning help as a mandatory requirement. Good thing it is still quite easy to summon help at this stage... I do believe though that getting summoned and learning bosses patterns is a pretty cool way to learn how to take on the boss yourself with minimum assistance in your own game.
|
|
|
Post by caoslayer on May 11, 2014 6:30:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess it comes from the fact that the most memorable and fun fights on DS1 where knights like O&S, Gwyn and Astorias.
The problem here is not that they are humanoid but that they are very alike to each other, almost every one does the same three hit combos with a rare unblackable so lots of fights feel sameish.
On the other hand, regular enemies are much better IMO and the NG+ is very different to normal game with lots of new enemies and some equipment.
I have beaten the game with the Company of Heroes (disable coop) active and using only cestus/barefists so I can asure everything is soloable more or less easily with some exceptions like Rat King Authority that is impossible without a shield.
EDIT: On my blind first playthrough I took advantage of getting summoned for boss fights I haven't fought before so I could learn it patterns without risk of death or value if I should try going somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on May 11, 2014 9:48:39 GMT -5
What? Has the tide changed and now Dark Souls II sucks? Speaking of which: www.gamespot.com/reviews/dark-souls-2-review-a-newcomer-in-drangleic/1900-6415748/While I understand his position (oh who am I kidding, LOL IGN SUCKS NOOBBALLS), the "flaws" he finds are the series' greatest strengths: not pandering to lowest-common denominator design choices that make gamers fat and stupid (not literally, I hope). It's important, if for no other reason, because you can find a ton of games that do pander to those choices, but not many who don't. Here are some of them: - Levels are bonuses, not game-changers. Skill is essential... are you letting your numbers fight for you, lol? - Waaaah, I lost me souls! All things wither and die. Learn to cope with loss, young padawan. Plus, you never lose anything important anyway. - Why me not invincible? A few hits is all it takes, for you and the enemy. Hey that's almost fair! - So obtuse, me lost. Be patient and observe, the game won't explain itself. On the other hand, this last "feature" is the one I find is the most paradoxical. While on the surface Dark Souls is trying to have a Myst-like ambience of a lonely decaying world where observation and patience are rewarded (except with monsters to murder you), under the hood it's a game where people obsess about "maxing builds" on detailed upgrade spreadsheets, where upgrades expended rare resources and where some things you'll never figure out without a guide... including some of the finer points of combat. Still, by the final paragraph, the reviewer looks like he's about to come around. And that's how it works: the game breaks you, then you're reborn again with a harder core.
|
|
|
Post by hashin on May 11, 2014 18:04:46 GMT -5
Hmm. I don't remember there being many places where you could run past enemies without it biting you, quite literally, on the ass. Good job on being skilled enough to pull that kind of thing off consistently, though. I thought this was a mechanic present on every Souls games, once you get the shortcut you can rush to the bossroom. I woudn't say it's a flaw.
|
|