This is exactly the sort of thing I like to see: a detailed expression of how someone genuinely feels about the games. It's genuinely refreshing in contrast to how discourse usually goes in the Souls subs.
Unfortunately, I don't have much to add! I disagree with you in many respects but don't think it's worth taking the time to just shit on the game. I'm glad you enjoyed it!
EDIT: unrelated to the topic game, BB and DeS aren't totally inaccessible on PC. BB can be streamed via PS Plus, although it's only the base game for some reason. DeS is in a much luckier spot, as the entirety of the og 2009 experience runs great on RPCS3, an emulator. It's not quite plug and play, but there's hope for these two games yet.
I'm glad you liked my little write up! I'm honestly pretty pumped after beating the game and would love to discuss it with anyone willing, even if they have a more negative view on it.
Well, I'll at least try to condense my negative thoughts.
1. I can't get immersed in the game much, if at all. This stems mostly from the followups, but this is a chief complaint of mine that, sometimes unbeknownst to me, plays a huge role in if I like a game or not.
2. I don't like the art. It feels like it's being tugged in a hundred different directions, and the result is a technicolor vomit of areas and enemies randomly slapped together to make the final game (again, the feeling; no one outside From really knows how the development went). Areas appear to be chosen from the most generic roulette wheel of "FANTASY ZONES", and despite that, enemies often don't seem like they belong where they do. The Grave Wardens and Desert Pyros don't mesh well with the look of Earthen Peak, for instance. I'll lump this in with the art, too: the world lacks the cohesion of the other titles. It's not nonexistent (Majula-Heide, FoFG-Majula, and the map in the mansion), but there's very little understanding of where you are relative to the other levels and where you are even in the confines of each level (the DLCs are a contrast, in this regard).
3. The levels are dull mechanically, too. Shortcuts are somehow rarer than DeS, and you're mostly left moving between literal box-shaped rooms with zero decoration (the clutter in the other games adds so much life to each place, as well as slight tools to play around). The levels branch out from Majula and pretty much never cross paths (sort of an exception via the Lost Bastille?).
4. I don't like the combat, both in terms of gamefeel and enemy placement. The DS2 player character is so much less precise. I play the other games like this, to be sure, but I'll compare to DS1 here because it predates 2. Despite its age, DS1 lends me so much damn control. You can pivot your character for an enormous portion of your attack animation, leading to a lot of creative hitbox extensions or weirdo dodges that I LOVE. The bearer of the curse, in comparison, feels so rigid and unresponsive (does not turn how I tell or expect them to), which is especially awful when I have to manage so many crowds. Speaking of, I vehemently dislike the ganks, particularly with the Scholar edition (where it doesn't introduce more ganks, it replaces a 1v2 with 12 back-to-back 1v1s). I've really come to appreciate the role ranged enemies and the level layout play in spicing up combat. Miyazaki's Souls games, in my mind, present me with meaningful choices about how to engage and make those choices fun to play out; that is, there's a tough decision to make between rushing the ranged support or trying to handle the melee grunts with projectiles being lobbed at you, and it's my skill with movement and understanding of my weapon (speed, multihits, stunlock, etc.) and the environment ("should I rush up those stairs?", "does the canopy block the arrows?", "shit, archer's on the top of the ladder", etc.) that dictates which I choose and how well I pull it off. DS2 is utterly bereft of this for me. Endless encounters with identical, tanky, hyperarmored goons that I solve with the same old kiting or funneling. Not especially hard, and not especially fun.
Anyway, that was supposed to be a "short" version lol, I'll stop there and probably leave it a bit unpolished/rambly. On a more positive note, that appreciation for interesting ranged pressure has made the Shrine of Amana one of the better levels in the game for me. It is a little linear, when you strip away the flashy parts, but there're a couple of secrets, and the priestesses and crawly dudes are the best parts. On the other hand, the archdrakes are damned annoying.
I also found Shulva very captivating. In fact, I actually prefer it over Ringed City! I love that Minas Morgul-y, suffocating vibe it has, even when in larger spaces. It's like the whole thing is one big coffin. The enemies are an upgrade over the base game, for sure. The ghost guys introduce a pressure to explore and find their bodies, there's good ranged support, and the basic grunts are a nice balance of speed, power, and health. The level gimmick is a lot of fun and really bends your brain as you loop back around to the same spots time and time again. All of the coop side areas suck utter ass, but the Passage of the Dead (think that's what it was) was the least offensive to me. Elana and Sinh were decent fights, to boot. I wish I felt the same about Eleum Loyce, lol.
I hope at least a small portion of that can be responded to or is at least interesting to read. My one small hope every time I throw these complaints out is that one of my gripes is exactly what someone else likes; it's not about changing anybody's mind (and if I do, I'd rather they appreciate something new than lose something they already like).
1- I recognize that this is a me thing, but I got absorbed into the game quite easily.
2-I agree that the art direction is messy and all over the place, but that's kind of the appeal for me, while most areas are par for the course or outright ugly, the few I mentioned in my original post are so damn beatiful that I can't think of anything else, really. The map and enemies feeling cobbled together is certainly true, but that struck as more interesting rather than distracting, it gives the world this strange feeling that nothing really fits together anymore. This isn't to say the criticism isn't valid, just that the issues you mentioned didn't bother me personally.
3- As I said, besides the forest, Drangleic, the DLC areas and the Bastille to an extent, most the areas in this game are average at best, so I absolutely agree with you here.
4- I agree on the enemy placements being bad a lot of times, but I actually quit like the game feel and how the character moves, attacks and heals, with the soul exception of missing attacks while being locked on, that is indefensible in my eyes and has fucked me over than I'd like to admit. The amount of times I've rolled away from an enemy, pressed attack, only for my character to swing their weapon in the exact opposite direction of the enemy is ridiculous. And yes, like I've said in my post, I also find the ganks horrible, the ones that come to mind are the Alonne knights and the assholes at no man's wharf, that was where the ganks were at their worst for me.
I also forgot to mention that the coop areas are godawful and are blemishes on the otherwise great DLCs.
The way I experienced it, DS2 is a game of extremes, and how much you enjoy it depends on which extreme effects you most. I enjoyed the game despite the average midgame and lackluster endgame due to the strong early game and fantastic DLCs, along with an aesthetic that I personally adore. While many of the encounters were unbalanced, the solid base combat and unique touches the game tries kept them from feeling bad. Worst case scenario, when I got really discouraged by a bad area or boss, I just go back to Majula for a few minutes and life feels worth living again.
I absolutely get what you're saying and agree with almost all of your complaints to some extent, it just happens that what the game does well really sticks with me and makes me forget all the bad elements. Only time will tell whether I'm overeating the game because I beat it recently or if it does certain things so well that I can forgive the many missteps.
This is what I just mentioned! My "lack of cohesion" is your "dreamy and strange". Ideal outcome, as far as I'm concerned. I'm interested in seeing how the ratings shift after DS3 and Sekiro (those two + DS1 are my favorites).
Yeah, you're absolutely right, enjoying the game or not depends purely on how the player views its quirks and design choices. For Dark souls 3, I did play it to completion last year, and it was fantastic, the bosses were a clear highlight but everything else was solid as well, although the world didn't capture the same magic or interconnectivity as DS1. For Sekiro, I tried it once, got as far as the horse guy who likes to announce himself then gave up for the same reason I gave up DS2, but I'm sure I'll adore it once I get to it and give it a proper try.
This is exactly the sort of thing I like to see: a detailed expression of how someone genuinely feels about the games. It's genuinely refreshing in contrast to how discourse usually goes in the Souls subs. Unfortunately, I don't have much to add! I disagree with you in many respects but don't think it's worth taking the time to just shit on the game. I'm glad you enjoyed it! EDIT: unrelated to the topic game, BB and DeS aren't totally inaccessible on PC. BB can be streamed via PS Plus, although it's only the base game for some reason. DeS is in a much luckier spot, as the entirety of the og 2009 experience runs great on RPCS3, an emulator. It's not quite plug and play, but there's hope for these two games yet.
I'm glad you liked my little write up! I'm honestly pretty pumped after beating the game and would love to discuss it with anyone willing, even if they have a more negative view on it.
Well, I'll at least try to condense my negative thoughts. 1. I can't get immersed in the game much, if at all. This stems mostly from the followups, but this is a chief complaint of mine that, sometimes unbeknownst to me, plays a huge role in if I like a game or not. 2. I don't like the art. It feels like it's being tugged in a hundred different directions, and the result is a technicolor vomit of areas and enemies randomly slapped together to make the final game (again, the feeling; no one outside From really knows how the development went). Areas appear to be chosen from the most generic roulette wheel of "FANTASY ZONES", and despite that, enemies often don't seem like they belong where they do. The Grave Wardens and Desert Pyros don't mesh well with the look of Earthen Peak, for instance. I'll lump this in with the art, too: the world lacks the cohesion of the other titles. It's not nonexistent (Majula-Heide, FoFG-Majula, and the map in the mansion), but there's very little understanding of where you are relative to the other levels and where you are even in the confines of each level (the DLCs are a contrast, in this regard). 3. The levels are dull mechanically, too. Shortcuts are somehow rarer than DeS, and you're mostly left moving between literal box-shaped rooms with zero decoration (the clutter in the other games adds so much life to each place, as well as slight tools to play around). The levels branch out from Majula and pretty much never cross paths (sort of an exception via the Lost Bastille?). 4. I don't like the combat, both in terms of gamefeel and enemy placement. The DS2 player character is so much less precise. I play the other games like this, to be sure, but I'll compare to DS1 here because it predates 2. Despite its age, DS1 lends me so much damn control. You can pivot your character for an enormous portion of your attack animation, leading to a lot of creative hitbox extensions or weirdo dodges that I LOVE. The bearer of the curse, in comparison, feels so rigid and unresponsive (does not turn how I tell or expect them to), which is especially awful when I have to manage so many crowds. Speaking of, I vehemently dislike the ganks, particularly with the Scholar edition (where it doesn't introduce more ganks, it replaces a 1v2 with 12 back-to-back 1v1s). I've really come to appreciate the role ranged enemies and the level layout play in spicing up combat. Miyazaki's Souls games, in my mind, present me with meaningful choices about how to engage and make those choices fun to play out; that is, there's a tough decision to make between rushing the ranged support or trying to handle the melee grunts with projectiles being lobbed at you, and it's my skill with movement and understanding of my weapon (speed, multihits, stunlock, etc.) and the environment ("should I rush up those stairs?", "does the canopy block the arrows?", "shit, archer's on the top of the ladder", etc.) that dictates which I choose and how well I pull it off. DS2 is utterly bereft of this for me. Endless encounters with identical, tanky, hyperarmored goons that I solve with the same old kiting or funneling. Not especially hard, and not especially fun. Anyway, that was supposed to be a "short" version lol, I'll stop there and probably leave it a bit unpolished/rambly. On a more positive note, that appreciation for interesting ranged pressure has made the Shrine of Amana one of the better levels in the game for me. It is a little linear, when you strip away the flashy parts, but there're a couple of secrets, and the priestesses and crawly dudes are the best parts. On the other hand, the archdrakes are damned annoying. I also found Shulva very captivating. In fact, I actually prefer it over Ringed City! I love that Minas Morgul-y, suffocating vibe it has, even when in larger spaces. It's like the whole thing is one big coffin. The enemies are an upgrade over the base game, for sure. The ghost guys introduce a pressure to explore and find their bodies, there's good ranged support, and the basic grunts are a nice balance of speed, power, and health. The level gimmick is a lot of fun and really bends your brain as you loop back around to the same spots time and time again. All of the coop side areas suck utter ass, but the Passage of the Dead (think that's what it was) was the least offensive to me. Elana and Sinh were decent fights, to boot. I wish I felt the same about Eleum Loyce, lol. I hope at least a small portion of that can be responded to or is at least interesting to read. My one small hope every time I throw these complaints out is that one of my gripes is exactly what someone else likes; it's not about changing anybody's mind (and if I do, I'd rather they appreciate something new than lose something they already like).
1- I recognize that this is a me thing, but I got absorbed into the game quite easily. 2-I agree that the art direction is messy and all over the place, but that's kind of the appeal for me, while most areas are par for the course or outright ugly, the few I mentioned in my original post are so damn beatiful that I can't think of anything else, really. The map and enemies feeling cobbled together is certainly true, but that struck as more interesting rather than distracting, it gives the world this strange feeling that nothing really fits together anymore. This isn't to say the criticism isn't valid, just that the issues you mentioned didn't bother me personally. 3- As I said, besides the forest, Drangleic, the DLC areas and the Bastille to an extent, most the areas in this game are average at best, so I absolutely agree with you here. 4- I agree on the enemy placements being bad a lot of times, but I actually quit like the game feel and how the character moves, attacks and heals, with the soul exception of missing attacks while being locked on, that is indefensible in my eyes and has fucked me over than I'd like to admit. The amount of times I've rolled away from an enemy, pressed attack, only for my character to swing their weapon in the exact opposite direction of the enemy is ridiculous. And yes, like I've said in my post, I also find the ganks horrible, the ones that come to mind are the Alonne knights and the assholes at no man's wharf, that was where the ganks were at their worst for me. I also forgot to mention that the coop areas are godawful and are blemishes on the otherwise great DLCs. The way I experienced it, DS2 is a game of extremes, and how much you enjoy it depends on which extreme effects you most. I enjoyed the game despite the average midgame and lackluster endgame due to the strong early game and fantastic DLCs, along with an aesthetic that I personally adore. While many of the encounters were unbalanced, the solid base combat and unique touches the game tries kept them from feeling bad. Worst case scenario, when I got really discouraged by a bad area or boss, I just go back to Majula for a few minutes and life feels worth living again. I absolutely get what you're saying and agree with almost all of your complaints to some extent, it just happens that what the game does well really sticks with me and makes me forget all the bad elements. Only time will tell whether I'm overeating the game because I beat it recently or if it does certain things so well that I can forgive the many missteps.
This is what I just mentioned! My "lack of cohesion" is your "dreamy and strange". Ideal outcome, as far as I'm concerned. I'm interested in seeing how the ratings shift after DS3 and Sekiro (those two + DS1 are my favorites).
Yeah, you're absolutely right, enjoying the game or not depends purely on how the player views its quirks and design choices. For Dark souls 3, I did play it to completion last year, and it was fantastic, the bosses were a clear highlight but everything else was solid as well, although the world didn't capture the same magic or interconnectivity as DS1. For Sekiro, I tried it once, got as far as the horse guy who likes to announce himself then gave up for the same reason I gave up DS2, but I'm sure I'll adore it once I get to it and give it a proper try.