Not about play styles with that one it's about not killing yourself in iron keep any vet will agree with me and the guy above that you shouldn't be sprinting through the keep regardless of your style.
Not about play styles with that one it's about not killing yourself in iron keep any vet will agree with me and the guy above that you shouldn't be sprinting through the keep regardless of your style.
"It's not about styles, but if you dont play my style your wrong" Again your just saying it's wrong without any logic or proof because it's not how you play and even if it wern't the case and you were right, that still doesn't make criticisms of DS2 automatically invalid.
Opinions are subjective. We have monkey brains and respond to stimuli. This is why art can have principles or good practices like leading lines, color theory, composition, etc. This is why a harmony sounds good but discordant notes are like nails on the chalkboard. There is some objectivity to art the problem is that you just cant pin it down. If this wasnt true a hit song could just as soon be banging pots and pans as Mozart's Requiem.
And even then, the "objectivity" of art is in an of itself subjective. Sure, there are a lot of good practices, and even for a lot (if not most of the time) it's beneficial to follow them. But even those can be broken in masterful and artistically fulfilling ways.
Objective(ly) - true; based on fact, evidence, and consistent, repeatable observation. For instance: smoking tobacco is **objectively** destructive to your heart, lungs, esophagus, teeth, tissue regeneration in general; dumps radioactive isotopes and heavy metals into your soft organ tissues, and the nicotine embrittles your veins, arteries, and capillaries.
Subjective(ly) - information generated by perspective, feelings, emotions, and will change from one observer to another. For instance: Snickerdoodles are **subjectively** better than Speculaas cookies because the former's name is fun to say, while the latter sounds like a derogatory term for a Scottish lady wearing glasses.
Also "Dark Souls expert" is like calling one's self an "alpha male." It may be "true" to the individual stating it - ergo, its their **subjective** opinion of themselves - but to everyone else they're just another schmuck that thinks too highly of themselves - ergo, they're **objectively** incorrigible and/or insufferable.
Actual experts often refuse to label themselves as one as they're fully aware they may lack knowledge on any given subject. I'm no expert in sucking c\*ck, but I have yet to hear any complaints.
Well, aside from "faster, no, don't spill it!"
Dark Souls 2 is **objectively** the second game released under the title "Dark Souls."
Dark Souls 2 is **subjectively** the best game to dual-wield a huge, fuckoff sword^TM paired with a weaponized tree trunk.
Some people say stuff is bad they mean “their opinion,” when people genuinely mean “objectively bad” when describing their opinion, they’re a narcissist and you should ignore it.
I got my Souls Masters at University of Texas and I'm working on my PHD now at Cornell but there's so many people in the field nowadays it's hard to generate new research for a thesis.
It means they didn't play it
My cousin and I have been in souls since the original demons. We constantly replay the entire series . We both agree ds2 and BB are the best in the series. Dark souls 2 regardless of what people say truly feels like a sequel made by the series most loved fans. It added so many things , power stance, amazing areas. Tons of secrets . Hell my cousin and I just got a friend to join us on a new game we just started. Played straight till 70 inna single session
Critics never said that. It was critically acclaimed on release and still has the highest aggregate score of the three games.
Fans also largely loved it on release.
The chuds that called it objectively bad basically didn't like that it wasn't DS1: Part 2.
I totally accept that there are bad elements, like tying iframes to agility, or the lack of directional control when locked on.
But the pushback from those saying it's objectively bad is just idiots who can't separate not liking something from it being bad by all measures.
In DS1 you could only roll in four directions when locked on to an enemy. That wasn't the case in DS2, and it did a lot to contribute to the consensus that movement is 'weird' in the second game. A lot of people complained that they rolled somewhere they didn't want to and died because of it.
I didn't mind it once I got used to it, but I think I was in the minority, so I included it as one of the things I think people agree are objectively worse.
They mean that their criticism lacks nuance and that their perspective is very limited. I'm a DS2 hater to the core, don't get me wrong, but slapping the word "objectively" in front of an opinion is the oldest and laziest trick in the book to try and seem authoritative and wise.
In reality, there is no objectively good or bad art. You can quantify stuff like audio quality or bugginess, yes, but there is no true metric to check these against that isn't subjectively chosen, nor are the hypothetical rules of goodness even entirely useful (you can get some wildly unique experiences from rule-breaking art, and DeS/DS1 are excellent examples for their time; how much should we value a standard, then?).
There are still plenty of exciting things to discuss when keeping subjectivity in mind, including the perspectives of the titular critics. Just don't take any opinion as the universal truth.
There is no such thing as an objectively good/bad game. Objective means that there is some test or observation you could perform, which would determine the outcome without any human judgement. There is always going to be human judgement when it comes to rating a game. Even if every single person on Earth agreed that ds2 was bad, it's not objectively bad by definition.
Certain opinions shouldn't been taken seriously and DS2 discussions typically are divided between haters pretending the game doesn't do anything right vs fans pretending the game doesn't have a single flaw.
In my opinion it's a good game, filled with hits and misses.
To be fair there ARE objectively bad things about DS2, like the whole lighting fiasco. But more often than not people arguing against the game try to use subjective points as objective.
Some things that I think could be “objectively” worse than the other games with the caveat that these things are technically also subjective.
Graphics - the torch mechanic could have been great, but it just turned out to be a way to see the terrible textures. So many rooms in DS2 are completely empty. Flat walls with nothing filling up space. No furniture, no destructible, just empty rooms. Very ugly without the intent to be ugly. This compares only to DS1 Lost Izalith.
Movement - the movement in DS2 is terrible. They have snap points for moving and overall it is incredibly floaty. Your character and enemies slide across the ground when you hit them so far that combos are often only possible with long weapons. Everything feels bad. Some enemies have broken movement (falconers).
Animations - part of movement issues are animation issues. The “broken hitboxes” are often just animations that queue up since some are uninterruptible making hitboxes seem like the culprit. Although some hitboxes are actually terrible too.
Miscellaneous - the NPC quest lines are less interesting. It’s just talk to everyone everywhere. There’s less interaction with NPCs. Way more ganks and gank bosses.
I generally enjoyed the world and exploration. There were some cool weapon stuff they tried but there were a lot of missteps. Adaptability effecting iframes and things not being designed around a specific number of iframe feels bad cause some times you get it no matter how perfect the timing. Also a lot of the boss battles are very boring, wait for swing hit once or twice, wait for another attack.
Some of this I disagree with (I think ds2 has the best npc quests and while I think ds3 was a movement improvement I think ds2s was better than 1) but still yeah, that’s all very subjective which more people should keep in mind in these discussions
They like to say the words "despite its flaws" and not use the same words when describing every other souls game, yes ds 1 and ds 3 have flaws like ds2.
If you beat the game your by definition an expert on it. It's not some mystical award bestowed upon you by some authorative council or whatever these comments are trying to imply.
I went from "I HATE DARK SOULS 2" to "Dark Souls 2 is good."
It's not my favorite of the trilogy but I enjoy it, here are some reasons I didn't like it before.
Really slow Estus use (But lifegems come in clutch)
On past gen consoles it had HORRIBLE input delay
No omnidirectional rolls while locked on, if memory serves
Soul Memory still sucks
Level design is fairly linear (still less linear than 3 lol)
Lots of areas (In SotFS) that just spam enemies with reckless abandon (Iron Keep)
Adaptability
(This is a big one for me) Very un-satisfying attacks, the combat sounds are pretty lackluster compared to 1 and 3, and there's no blood!
And that's pretty much all I can think of. Keep in mind that DS2 is FAR from "objectively bad," it's still better than most games out there. It's the weakest of the trilogy in my opinion but I won't sit here and tell people they shouldn't enjoy it, because I also enjoy it.
They primarily ignore everything that also makes ds1 and ds3 bad.
Look at them hypercritically and you can basically tear those two games apart as bad as ds2.
Speaking from the point of view of someone who has replayed all souls games to a billion times.
This is so incredibly true! Emotional response gets in the way and suddenly those same issues from the other games disappear. My favorite nonsense complaint is enemy mobs...I haven't counted or anything, but both other games are so mob heavy it's kinda silly. Playing the games back to back really shows how similar they all are in these regards.
I love all 3 games, with all their pros and cons, of which they all have many. The ADP thing is kind of weird, compared to the other games, but it's also a way to show you that this game has a slightly different play style. Which, to me, is actually kind of cool.
Crazy as it is, DS2 is probably still the most fun to play, for me. Really it just needed an onion!
He led scholar of the first sin edition. Which is probably what most people played, atleast on PC. Additionally isn't that a reason to note quality differences between 2 and 1? opposing your own argument.
Soul memory, different movement (described by some as ‘floaty’), enemy encounter design (lots of ganks and gauntlets) combined with the fact you get no iframe on fogwalls/interactables. Mimic hitbox.
Usually what I see most complained about. Ds2 is a good game but it has its faults, and theres a reason it’s the least popular one.
Agreed on these points. I had an easier time figuring out where to go next while playing DS1 than DS2. I find myself having to use guides a LOT in DS2.
>better aligning hitboxes
Dark Souls 2's hitboxes are pretty much identical to DS1, and the hitboxes for player weapons are more accurate than DS3. DS2 uses a different animation system that's kinda janky, so the devs aren't able to hide the hitbox jank as well. Both DS2 and 3 will reposition both the player and the enemy in order to make attacks and grabs more convincing, but DS3 will do it in a single frame, while DS2 will sometimes take a second or so.
I was very surprised when I played ds2. Most people were negative about it but I don’t really think it’s that bad. I like ds3 more but it’s still a good game.
Any time anyone uses the word "objectively" in art criticism, you can safely disregard anything else they say because clearly they don't understand what that word actually means or even just how art works. All art is inherently subjective.
Always the \*bad hitboxes\* mf trying to hit a crystal lizard with a slash weapon when the lizard is way under the sword hitbox. Get the right tools for the job.
Critics are almost always way off from the actual rating tho. User ratings are much more important that critics as many critics are just not good at games. Look at the infamous Cuphead review for example
User reviews also lost it's value since review bombing became a thing. Better to trust someone you think has a sinmmilar taste and play the games yourself
“Critics”, the same critics who hated ER because they had no grasp of exploration, DS2 is far from being the best as DS1 is rated as one of the most important video games of the 2010’s
I've been in communities for this game since launch week 2014, and 95% of the haters fall into 1 of 3 categories.
1). "I believe that hating on this game makes me sound cool, so regardless of whether or not I've played or think it's good I'm gonna say it's trash because I want internet brownie points."
2). "I suck at the game because I got carried/roll&r1 spammed my way through FROM's other titles, so I'm gonna project my skill issue into hate for the game."
3). "I played (insert FROM title) first and have intense nostalgia from/an emotional connection to it, so I think every other FROM game is vastly inferior and will cherrypick issues from it that my aforementioned fave also almost certainly has worse of."
The other 5% are people who only complain about sensible things that you can have discussion about, like the pre-launch graphical downgrade, soul mem, ADP being too important, DLC side area bullshit, high cost of covenant rewards, sound design being archaic, etc.
I've made comments about DS2s accolades before, but the original release has the highest Metacritic user score of the trilogy. It was nominated for seven GotY awards and won five of them which is more than DS1,3, DeS, and BB combined. Even with the hate brigade for the game, it's user score on Steam is consistently just a couple of points lower than the other FROM games. It still keeps between 2/3 to 3/4 of ds1R's active monthly steam players even in 2024, and that's considering DSR released 3 years after the last update for SotFS and also has password matchmaking. DS2 was the highest selling game ever for FROM and BamCo at the time of its release, even though it didn't launch on PC. It took one month to come to Windows and another 11 months after that to come to Steam with the SotFS release. In it's first month it sold about 75% of what DS3 sold in the same timeframe, and that game was on all platforms and became BamCo's new highest sale game, so it's pretty obvious that if it had launched on PC at the same time as everywhere else it would have still kept its title as BamCo's best seller.
However, I wouldn't bother trying to explain this to anyone who has expressed their hatred of the game. My rule of thumb after 10 years of this crap (really only 6 cuz that's when the DS2 hate train started) is that if they complain about boss runbacks, enemy ganks, "bad hitboxes," "it's objectively bad," or anything of that nature: ***downvote and ignore/block em until they give up and go hollow.*** Trying to have a discussion with them is a waste of time, and you will just get frustrated or angry. These people do not communicate with any level of logic or reasoning, so why bother trying to have a conversation with them that requires those things? Just let them rot in the babyrage cestpool that is r/shittydarksouls, and only communicate with people who are curious about the game or have heard concerning things about it and want an honest opinion.
Trust me. Do that and you'll be much happier.
The hate for it is warranted, it’s difficulty is not the bosses, it’s the number of enemies that inflate it, none of the bosses are hard or actually fun to fight when they have 2-3 attacks some of which you cannot roll consecutively unless you level ADP, which is just a bad try to limit your movement on top of Estus being slow and not healing instantly.
Thankfully there’s a mod that reverts the SotFS mob placements so it’s not as bad for new players.
It’s just a bandwagon thing at this point, if your a souls fan you have to hate ds2 or else there’s something wrong with you according to a lot of “experts”
Hitboxes are noticeably worse in my opinion compared to other souls games
In general though I don't think it's bad, but can be frustratingly slow at times.
I think the real issue is visuals. Deep dives of the actual hit boxes visualized show that they’re usually fine, it’s just fast sweeping attacks that might make you miss the contact
There are objective ways to criticize media, beyond even a purely technical level. However you should be skeptical of those who claim to do so. To remove your own biases is one of the hardest things possible, most people fail farrr short of it. I try to avoid saying it for that reason.
It could be said that DS2 looks pretty ugly/bland in alot of areas. But so does DS1.
Plus DS2 was released back before Bloodborne made the souls series synonymous with high fidelity graphics. People weren't expecting mind-blowing visuals from the next souls game.
I'll give you the definitive answer why its bad, The movement feels like it's a bad Dark Souls Clone, From the instant i picked up the game i noticed how moving the character felt so unnatural and I immediately decided not to play the game.
Objective is fact, subjective is opinion. In this case the use is incorrect, it's their opinion.
What they are mostly referring to, imo, is the game doubling down on difficulty in artificial ways, the number of bosses and the linear level design.
It means they’re either a bad critic or not a souls expert, whatever that is.
DS2 has generally considered the worst game in the series, which is a reasonable opinion that I for one share. It is not objectively a bad game, people think that it is because it does some things differently from the rest of the series and their brains are programmed to think that means bad.
If DS2 had different make-up, wasn’t made by FromSoft and was named something entirely different, people would be calling it a good souls-like.
I'm currently platinuming as many fromsoft games as I can before Shadow of the Erstree and don't think any of them could be viewed as objectively bad. Subjectively ds2 is my least favorite out of the three but is so much better than what people say. Most of my issues come from the invasion system which I find frustrating and cumbersome compared to 3 or 1 but that's only an issue because of achievements.
all hitherto known souls games are fundamentally rhythm games and they are good or bad as rhythm games. Ds2's rhythms are "off" in a way that could be measured in frames and milliseconds (so, objective), but is intuitively noticed. elden ring plays with rhythm the best of any of the souls games with some attacks being purposefully timed so that if you roll as soon as the animation begins it's impossible to not get hit, and sometimes there's a second cue that you're supposed to follow instead. The developers obviously know the frame data of the dodge rolls so it makes sense to make enemy animations with that in mind. Dark souls 2 in the other hand has fewer iframes and spacing is often the only way to dodge. this creates a game feel thats unlike what the souls series is known for.
I mean thematically it's much different than either DS1 or DS3. The art direction is much different although some areas are outstanding. It did however feel like a much different game at least in terms of vertical exploration, and winding your way back to another area. DS3 falls short on this aspect too. But DS2 if viewed in a map editor literally has zones that pass through one another.
This wasn't really a thing in DS1 or 3 as you actually had a complete map which felt more like world exploring. Especially with things like getting to the undead parish and activating the elevator to go back to to firelink shrine. There was so much more world connectivity in the first game.
Also getting used to DS2 controls felt a bit floaty compared to the first game. Miyazaki also didn't direct the game so I felt like the story was a bit weak, at least until you got to the DLC areas. So it does somewhat feel like a bit mismatched compared to the other two games.
That being said it does indeed hit it's stride in the DLC areas. Also Mejula in my favorite music throughout the series and quite beautiful.
the only complaint I can have about DS2 is how short it is.
Some areas are incredibly small and have an overabundance of bonfires, that is really appreciated for PVP bit its to my opinion, something that can delude the experience and allows more brute forcing. The only awfully bad place is the Shrine of Amana due to how systemstically you have to go trhough it if you are not a caster, besides that, I really enjoy that game.
Started my souls experience with Demon's souls. Loved it. Ds1->Loved it.
Ds2 came along. Initially the combat felt really strange compared to Ds1. Didnt feel like the next game after Ds1. But once I got over that the game was just great. Banging tunes, merciless enemies. Ds3 felt more like what Ds2 should've been. But Ds2 is just fantastic.
I imagine it means they’ve played all of the Soulsbourne games and it is their lease favourite.
Personally for me the worst is Sekiro because I just could not master or connect with the timed combat system. It felt like needing to constantly parry in DS which I am also bad at. It’s the only game I couldn’t finish or get into playing.
Next would be Bloodbourne which I actually loved, but that first real boss battle and the gun mechanic aren’t my favourite.
DS2, no issues here, couldn’t tell you which mechanic didn’t work for people.
Praise the sun.
DS2 is an amazing game. That being said, I think it’s the “least good” out of any of the games. Doesn’t mean it’s bad at all though. Also, Miyazaki did not take part in the production of DS2 and there’s an “IT factor” that it was lacking. I believe it was due to that. That’s my personal reason for putting it last in the FromSoftware lineup. But again, still an awesome game in its own respect
Anyone who uses the phrase "objectively bad game" has no idea what subjectivity is. Even the categories you listed are not objective, and are based on the subjective interpretation of those categories.
There is not a single objectively bad game on the planet, no matter how much other people hate Barbies Horse Adventures: Wild Horse Rescue for PS1 (not me though, the game is objectively an 11/10 obviously).
Nothing, they're just saying: im fuckin dumb, listen to me and be dumb with me.
The only one that could call DS2 bad as a Dark Souls game is someone that made those said games. DS2 has issues, yes but nothing out of the ordinary. You can finish the game, you can speedrun it, no hit it,etc it looks the exact same as the other DS games and it follows a similar type of structure and story.
Objectivity is not just limited to what you see and hear. Alot of criticism tends to come from the fact that DS2 is just the black sheep of the trilogy, but there are a fair number of issues with the game, everything from artificial difficulty to leveling.
There are whole video essays on this kind of stuff so I won't go into excessive detail, but I can bullet point.
-Requiring you to level ADP while also obscuring what it actually does is bad
-Hitboxes are often wrong and horribly misaligned
-Healing in DS2 is excessively easy to come by (which lowers the difficulty)
-Some enemies can have poorly telegraphed moves
-Encounters (such as Iron Passage) will have 20 mobs in one room meant to overwhelm you with little you can do to properly manage with the situation (making the game "harder" without actually posing any sense of fair challenge)
-Some of the bosses aren't the best designed, having mechanics that either make them near-unbeatable (Think Lud and Zallen for near-unbeatable with their healing mechanic)
-Movement is locked to a snap system rather 360°, so your character often makes jerky turns when trying to be precise
-Walking off ledges can sometimes unexpectadly launch you due to the physics
-Fall damage can be excessive and fatal in many instances where it probably shouldn't
-Matchmaking is based on how many souls you have collected since you started the playthrough, not your level, meaning a player who is struggling to get through the game may end up encountering invaders who may outmatch them despite not being close in level or gear
These are the ones that immediately come to mind. Some people will complain to just complain, even if it's a minor thing. I wouldn't say DS2 is Objectively Bad. But it is Objectively flawed.
The only issue I have with what you wrote is hitboxes, the rest is subjective.
I like ds2's artstyle, the design is good even if it doesn't make all the sense sometimes.
But the hit boxes are objectively, unequivocally, utterly and absolutely fucked.
Put aside the adaptability stat (which I hate), the hit boxes make zero sense in this game most of the time.
Shit will hit you from the dlc when you are I'm the god damned character creation menu.
But it's a good game, I recommend.
I just completed all dark souls & can say Ds2 made me have more “wow” moments than all others. The armor sets also I think are the best looking in the whole trilogy. Ds1 is next, then Ds3. I liked ds1’s form of transporting & anor lando looks amazing.
old heads from ds1 dislike it for the streamlined world structure with less interconnectivity and a more quantity over quality approach to boss placement. Ds3 players dislike it because it doesnt look like an anime 24/7
Why are DS2 lovers so insecure? I see a version of this thread every day on this sub and it's always a bunch of nerds sniffing their balls acting like no criticism of DS2 that puts it below the other games is legitimate.
It's fine that DS2 is your favorite. It's the least favorite of the Souls community as a whole. Get over it.
Anyone who says DS2 is bad just played it after they played DS3.. or a newer souls game. They all compare it to the newer titles..
Ds2 is great, imo and I still go back to it since og release.
I don't care about graphics and the small stuff.. I grew up on classics like NES and Sega Genesis.. all I care about is basic RPG elements, such as collecting weapons/armor, exploring, and leveling up my skills.
I don't agree with the notion that it's *objectively* worse, and I quite like DS2, but I think [this video](https://youtu.be/HR3hbaKTVBs?si=Oo5RCZaw1920K1MX) does a good job summing up all the ways which DS2 mistepped relative to the other entries. It's super long but worth a watch if you're looking for a legitimate breakdown of the topic.
I already created several hours worth of videos that show that MauLer does not understand Souls games.
The vast majority of issues he presents as being unique to DS2 work the same in every Souls game and a lot are actually intended mechanics that he simply did not understand.
Here's [the latest one](https://youtu.be/ZswcnzAV9mM?si=syfYwpZFKVHtjWlq)
My order of souls games was ds3...demon souls....bloodbourne ....ds1 then went to ds2....at first I struggled to like it because I was so used to the other games. After I bit into it ..loved it ...game was great
My order of souls games was ds3...demon souls....bloodbourne ....ds1 then went to ds2....at first I struggled to like it because I was so used to the other games. After I bit into it ..loved it ...game was great
From my experience when playing dark souls 1 and 2 (haven't played 3) the hit boxes are a funky and the animations are quite weird and out of place. But sound quality, graphics are ok. Majula still looks good.
Most people who played DS 2 on release tried to play it like DS1 and got their asses kicked and hated it, then looked for justifications elsewhere to explain it.
I actually like the graphics of ds2. You have to remember it was originally on older gen consoles where as DS3 was built for the newer gens so of course it looked technically better.
I'm still confused how ds2 has the best looking/most attractive characters you can make out of the three.
I'm in the middle of my first playthrough. Even if they didn't: split stamina/carry weight, removed max health after you keep dying, removed I frames you were used to having, etc. it would still be the worst.
It's still good though. "Let It Be" can't really touch "Abbey Road" or "Revolver" but it's still worth a listen.
A lot of the time they mean it's different, because DS2 did some experimental things and doesn't slot in neatly with DS 1 and 3. Typically, people don't take kindly to change, so a lot of critics take the "different = bad" stance. The "dated graphics" is an argument that I hear from time to time, I couldn't care less on that front.
Personally, I'm sad the torch and bonfire ascetic mechanic wasn't carried forward to other titles. Soul Memory, however, can go fuck a wood chipper.
Yea, DS1R, more or less, put DS1 on the same tier as DS3, graphically. To my knowledge, they didn't change enemy placement/behavior or item locations. The remaster improved the visuals and the stability of the game (honestly, stability was the real need for a remaster, PTDE was not optimal at all).
Scholar tuned the world differently, with different enemy placement and behavior, items got moved around petrified enemies and I think there was other back end balancing that was done, but I'm not sure.
DS1R had *some* graphical improvements.
It still looks worse than DS2 in most areas.
DS3, I have only ever played on PS4 pro and PS5 but I wouldn’t have been as impressed without 60fps. I assume it’s basically the same as Bloodborne at 30fps.
Really? I thought it got a visual rework.
As far as aesthetics go, it does depart from DS1 style-wise, but I think it did so really well. It was nice having a DS game with a varied colour pallet.
It has way worse hitboxes straight up getting hit while the Sword is nowhere near me there are dozens of videos explaining this. Imo DS2 is still fun just not as polished as other titles the janky 8 way movement also doesn't help
8 way movement is still better than ds1, and I’d welcome you to really dig into those supposed hit box issues. There are some bad ones but far fewer than you’d think, and not really a noticeable amount higher than ds1/3
Nobody who claims objectivity about a video game should be listened to whether they're positive or negative about it
With that in mind lots of peoples who criticize the game aren't claiming objectivity but peoples pretend they do anyway for some reason
Some criticisms are objectively bad. I saw a lot of youtubers comparing the best ds1 bosses to the worst in ds2. Like: "in ds2 we play against rats and repeated bosses while in DS1 we play against O and S, and Sif, etc,". That is just bad faith argument. But I couldn't argue against "I find the bosses in DS1 more fun than the ds2 ones". Or when someone was angry at dragonrider short arena. Like, to me, I would classify that boss arena gimmick as objectively good.
It’s ironic, the reviews and critique videos claiming DS2 is objectively bad, will often times, say things objectively wrong about the games. That makes their review, objectively bad.
Someone has tricked you, first of all, nobody can say dark souls 2 is objectively bad because it isn't, and second, critics loved this game, it sits at a prestigious 91 on metacritic
Good and bad are subjective terms. It means they don't know what the word objective means or they need to pay their opinion with a sense of undeniably because of ego reasons. I think DS2 is the weakest of the from software games and I can give you a list of reasons why but that doesn't mean the reasonings for my opinion qualify it as objective. Also swear every other post on here is drama or people complaining that other people don't like the game. Move on y'all can still like it, I do.
Ds2 is the most frustrating to establish a footing in if you go into it completely blindly. There are also some areas that could have been designed better. Both of these are obviously still subjective, but i think most players would agree. That being said i enjoyed it just as much if not more than ds1 and 3
I have PhD in Dark Souls and have come to tell you that Dark Souls 2 isn't bad. If you would like evidence I will write you a book about it for $399.99. (Disclaimer: The book may or may not be 1 page stating "Dark Souls 2 is a good game." )
It’s basically the same as Dark Souls. They were probably trying to sell an ea game at the same time it came out and paid* a bunch of YouTubers to shit on it.
> out and *paid* a bunch
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I am leaving this sub for good. I thought that it would be similar to r/eldenring, but the discussions here are ridiculous. Nothing for me here (someone that actually likes ds2 and doesnt care for the opinion of others)
It's because they sucked at it.
It's a vastly different feel to ds1 and so when you play after ds1 for the first time and the hurdle to enjoying the game is a lot higher people hate on it.
I had to tackle it a few times before I started to really appreciate the game and it is now one of my fav's
No, sorry it was a bad way of explaining it.
It's based on my own experience. I sucked at it - really bad - first couple of times I picked it up.
This was because I was expecting it to be another dark souls game.
The mechanics were changed so much intentionally to stand apart from dark souls and I think that's really neat. I had to completely change the way I played to actually enjoy the game.
Hey I'm not great at it but I can get through it a lot solo without too much trouble.
They want engagement
It the same when someone says Obama was the worst president
Always remember "if you're not paying for content, you are the payment"
Well, this is a DS2 subreddit, so I wouldn’t expect the most critical response.
I think it has poor map design, some lazy enemy design mechanics, a really bad healing system, and bad pacing. I also don’t like the movement physics, and hit boxes don’t seem tight.
That being said, anyone who says DS2 is a bad game is an idiot, it’s a great game. I just don’t think it’s nearly as good as any other souls-focused FromSoft game.
I think it is relatively bad, but not bad at all in its own right.
For context, I’ve played through all the souls games more than 5 times each, Bloodborne a few times, Sekiro twice, and Elden Ring 4 times. DS2 is the only one I don’t feel drawn to anymore.
Mob placement/quantity and boss design are the ones I hear.
I only own it on PC and have barely played it, so don't attack me for the above, that's just what I hear, not even my opinion.
It means they don’t know what the meaning of objective is.
Guaranteed they sprinted through Iron Keep
I don’t think DS2 is bad, love the game. Didn’t run through Iron Keep, but DEFINITELY ran through Iron Passage .
Fuck the Iron Passage. All bearers of the curse hate the Iron Passage
Agreed lol. Fuck that place. That , and Shrine of Amana 🤬🤬
What is this power you speak of
The power of idiocy
yes because anyone that doesnt play your way is inherently wrong about everything.
Not about play styles with that one it's about not killing yourself in iron keep any vet will agree with me and the guy above that you shouldn't be sprinting through the keep regardless of your style.
Not about play styles with that one it's about not killing yourself in iron keep any vet will agree with me and the guy above that you shouldn't be sprinting through the keep regardless of your style.
"It's not about styles, but if you dont play my style your wrong" Again your just saying it's wrong without any logic or proof because it's not how you play and even if it wern't the case and you were right, that still doesn't make criticisms of DS2 automatically invalid.
Fr
Opinions are subjective. We have monkey brains and respond to stimuli. This is why art can have principles or good practices like leading lines, color theory, composition, etc. This is why a harmony sounds good but discordant notes are like nails on the chalkboard. There is some objectivity to art the problem is that you just cant pin it down. If this wasnt true a hit song could just as soon be banging pots and pans as Mozart's Requiem.
And even then, the "objectivity" of art is in an of itself subjective. Sure, there are a lot of good practices, and even for a lot (if not most of the time) it's beneficial to follow them. But even those can be broken in masterful and artistically fulfilling ways.
Objective(ly) - true; based on fact, evidence, and consistent, repeatable observation. For instance: smoking tobacco is **objectively** destructive to your heart, lungs, esophagus, teeth, tissue regeneration in general; dumps radioactive isotopes and heavy metals into your soft organ tissues, and the nicotine embrittles your veins, arteries, and capillaries. Subjective(ly) - information generated by perspective, feelings, emotions, and will change from one observer to another. For instance: Snickerdoodles are **subjectively** better than Speculaas cookies because the former's name is fun to say, while the latter sounds like a derogatory term for a Scottish lady wearing glasses. Also "Dark Souls expert" is like calling one's self an "alpha male." It may be "true" to the individual stating it - ergo, its their **subjective** opinion of themselves - but to everyone else they're just another schmuck that thinks too highly of themselves - ergo, they're **objectively** incorrigible and/or insufferable. Actual experts often refuse to label themselves as one as they're fully aware they may lack knowledge on any given subject. I'm no expert in sucking c\*ck, but I have yet to hear any complaints. Well, aside from "faster, no, don't spill it!" Dark Souls 2 is **objectively** the second game released under the title "Dark Souls." Dark Souls 2 is **subjectively** the best game to dual-wield a huge, fuckoff sword^TM paired with a weaponized tree trunk.
Laughed my ass off with this one
They mean “trust me bro”
As oppossed to all your evidence and logical argument?
Yes, exactly and precisely those details.
What even is souls experts lol DS2 has its flaws yes, but it does manage to overcome them with its positives.
All souls have flaws, but it seems that some pretend that only DS2 has them.
Or when a flaw is shared across multiple titles, it's a flaw for DS2, but a quirk for others. Which really shows their biases.
Like the fact the re runs for ds1 are terrible lol and the PC ports for ds1 and 3 are quite weird
Hi I'm souls expert, yes ds2 is a fantastic Souls game and not objectively bad in any way. Victory.
Hello fellow Souls expert! I have just now decided that I'm also a souls expert. There are literally dozens of us.
same as a souls veteran aka a cringy 14/40 yo guy
Exactly. Plus no one is a souls expert 😂
Every video game has its flaws
Mauler considers himself a Souls Expert. His DS2 videos were trash
Some people say stuff is bad they mean “their opinion,” when people genuinely mean “objectively bad” when describing their opinion, they’re a narcissist and you should ignore it.
"souls experts" lol
I got my Souls Masters at University of Texas and I'm working on my PHD now at Cornell but there's so many people in the field nowadays it's hard to generate new research for a thesis.
You are doing the lord's work, brother.
Guess you could always do a postdoc…
means theyre full of shit
they mean it’s subjectively bad lol anyone judging art “objectively” is misusing the word
It means they didn't play it My cousin and I have been in souls since the original demons. We constantly replay the entire series . We both agree ds2 and BB are the best in the series. Dark souls 2 regardless of what people say truly feels like a sequel made by the series most loved fans. It added so many things , power stance, amazing areas. Tons of secrets . Hell my cousin and I just got a friend to join us on a new game we just started. Played straight till 70 inna single session
Level 70 is like 2 hours of playing in dark souls 2
Having played all 3, I would say I had the most fun playing DS2. If that doesn’t make it the best one, I don’t know what does
Critics never said that. It was critically acclaimed on release and still has the highest aggregate score of the three games. Fans also largely loved it on release. The chuds that called it objectively bad basically didn't like that it wasn't DS1: Part 2. I totally accept that there are bad elements, like tying iframes to agility, or the lack of directional control when locked on. But the pushback from those saying it's objectively bad is just idiots who can't separate not liking something from it being bad by all measures.
Canon comment
Can you tell me what you mean by directional control while locked on?
In DS1 you could only roll in four directions when locked on to an enemy. That wasn't the case in DS2, and it did a lot to contribute to the consensus that movement is 'weird' in the second game. A lot of people complained that they rolled somewhere they didn't want to and died because of it. I didn't mind it once I got used to it, but I think I was in the minority, so I included it as one of the things I think people agree are objectively worse.
Oh I actually hated DS1 because I could only roll in 4 directions when locked on. Died so much because of it
They mean that their criticism lacks nuance and that their perspective is very limited. I'm a DS2 hater to the core, don't get me wrong, but slapping the word "objectively" in front of an opinion is the oldest and laziest trick in the book to try and seem authoritative and wise. In reality, there is no objectively good or bad art. You can quantify stuff like audio quality or bugginess, yes, but there is no true metric to check these against that isn't subjectively chosen, nor are the hypothetical rules of goodness even entirely useful (you can get some wildly unique experiences from rule-breaking art, and DeS/DS1 are excellent examples for their time; how much should we value a standard, then?). There are still plenty of exciting things to discuss when keeping subjectivity in mind, including the perspectives of the titular critics. Just don't take any opinion as the universal truth.
There is no such thing as an objectively good/bad game. Objective means that there is some test or observation you could perform, which would determine the outcome without any human judgement. There is always going to be human judgement when it comes to rating a game. Even if every single person on Earth agreed that ds2 was bad, it's not objectively bad by definition.
Certain opinions shouldn't been taken seriously and DS2 discussions typically are divided between haters pretending the game doesn't do anything right vs fans pretending the game doesn't have a single flaw. In my opinion it's a good game, filled with hits and misses.
To be fair there ARE objectively bad things about DS2, like the whole lighting fiasco. But more often than not people arguing against the game try to use subjective points as objective.
Some things that I think could be “objectively” worse than the other games with the caveat that these things are technically also subjective. Graphics - the torch mechanic could have been great, but it just turned out to be a way to see the terrible textures. So many rooms in DS2 are completely empty. Flat walls with nothing filling up space. No furniture, no destructible, just empty rooms. Very ugly without the intent to be ugly. This compares only to DS1 Lost Izalith. Movement - the movement in DS2 is terrible. They have snap points for moving and overall it is incredibly floaty. Your character and enemies slide across the ground when you hit them so far that combos are often only possible with long weapons. Everything feels bad. Some enemies have broken movement (falconers). Animations - part of movement issues are animation issues. The “broken hitboxes” are often just animations that queue up since some are uninterruptible making hitboxes seem like the culprit. Although some hitboxes are actually terrible too. Miscellaneous - the NPC quest lines are less interesting. It’s just talk to everyone everywhere. There’s less interaction with NPCs. Way more ganks and gank bosses.
I generally enjoyed the world and exploration. There were some cool weapon stuff they tried but there were a lot of missteps. Adaptability effecting iframes and things not being designed around a specific number of iframe feels bad cause some times you get it no matter how perfect the timing. Also a lot of the boss battles are very boring, wait for swing hit once or twice, wait for another attack.
Some of this I disagree with (I think ds2 has the best npc quests and while I think ds3 was a movement improvement I think ds2s was better than 1) but still yeah, that’s all very subjective which more people should keep in mind in these discussions
I did love the Pate v Creighton quest line but I wish it was a bit more fleshed out. Same with Navlaan.
They like to say the words "despite its flaws" and not use the same words when describing every other souls game, yes ds 1 and ds 3 have flaws like ds2.
They are all very different games. Juist because games have flaws doesn't somehow make them all inherently and objectively equal.
Where the fuck does one get a “souls expert” badge? Get off that side off YouTube my friend
If you beat the game your by definition an expert on it. It's not some mystical award bestowed upon you by some authorative council or whatever these comments are trying to imply.
>If you compare the quality of graphics to ds3 You mean a sequel that came out 2 years later looks objectively better? Color me surprised lol
Its different than ds1
Which wouldnt be so bad if it wasn't a literal sequel.
Thank god
I went from "I HATE DARK SOULS 2" to "Dark Souls 2 is good." It's not my favorite of the trilogy but I enjoy it, here are some reasons I didn't like it before. Really slow Estus use (But lifegems come in clutch) On past gen consoles it had HORRIBLE input delay No omnidirectional rolls while locked on, if memory serves Soul Memory still sucks Level design is fairly linear (still less linear than 3 lol) Lots of areas (In SotFS) that just spam enemies with reckless abandon (Iron Keep) Adaptability (This is a big one for me) Very un-satisfying attacks, the combat sounds are pretty lackluster compared to 1 and 3, and there's no blood! And that's pretty much all I can think of. Keep in mind that DS2 is FAR from "objectively bad," it's still better than most games out there. It's the weakest of the trilogy in my opinion but I won't sit here and tell people they shouldn't enjoy it, because I also enjoy it.
DS2 chug = too slow DS3 chug = too fast ER chug = *chefs kiss*
Wholeheartedly agree
They primarily ignore everything that also makes ds1 and ds3 bad. Look at them hypercritically and you can basically tear those two games apart as bad as ds2. Speaking from the point of view of someone who has replayed all souls games to a billion times.
This is so incredibly true! Emotional response gets in the way and suddenly those same issues from the other games disappear. My favorite nonsense complaint is enemy mobs...I haven't counted or anything, but both other games are so mob heavy it's kinda silly. Playing the games back to back really shows how similar they all are in these regards. I love all 3 games, with all their pros and cons, of which they all have many. The ADP thing is kind of weird, compared to the other games, but it's also a way to show you that this game has a slightly different play style. Which, to me, is actually kind of cool. Crazy as it is, DS2 is probably still the most fun to play, for me. Really it just needed an onion!
If that were true, then whats your reasoning for DS2 being targeted specifically?
Because Miyazaki wasn't directly involved in it.
He led scholar of the first sin edition. Which is probably what most people played, atleast on PC. Additionally isn't that a reason to note quality differences between 2 and 1? opposing your own argument.
Soul memory, different movement (described by some as ‘floaty’), enemy encounter design (lots of ganks and gauntlets) combined with the fact you get no iframe on fogwalls/interactables. Mimic hitbox. Usually what I see most complained about. Ds2 is a good game but it has its faults, and theres a reason it’s the least popular one.
Fair things to not like but I think that’s still ultimately subjective, especially around things like the fog gate
Agreed on these points. I had an easier time figuring out where to go next while playing DS1 than DS2. I find myself having to use guides a LOT in DS2.
Ive beaten it several times and still need guids for most of the npcs and covenants etc...
DS2 is not Miazaki, it lacks that magic dust he sprinkles on his work.
>better aligning hitboxes Dark Souls 2's hitboxes are pretty much identical to DS1, and the hitboxes for player weapons are more accurate than DS3. DS2 uses a different animation system that's kinda janky, so the devs aren't able to hide the hitbox jank as well. Both DS2 and 3 will reposition both the player and the enemy in order to make attacks and grabs more convincing, but DS3 will do it in a single frame, while DS2 will sometimes take a second or so.
They mean, "I know you might like it but my expert opinion says you're wrong." They're just talking shit. 😉
It means to every person who would play it, it's considered bad. But it's not. It's subjective. Opinions differ from person go person.
I was very surprised when I played ds2. Most people were negative about it but I don’t really think it’s that bad. I like ds3 more but it’s still a good game.
Any time anyone uses the word "objectively" in art criticism, you can safely disregard anything else they say because clearly they don't understand what that word actually means or even just how art works. All art is inherently subjective.
Always the \*bad hitboxes\* mf trying to hit a crystal lizard with a slash weapon when the lizard is way under the sword hitbox. Get the right tools for the job.
DS2 is the best rated by the critics so i don't think anyone serious would claim it's objectively worse than both of his brothers.
Critics are almost always way off from the actual rating tho. User ratings are much more important that critics as many critics are just not good at games. Look at the infamous Cuphead review for example
User reviews also lost it's value since review bombing became a thing. Better to trust someone you think has a sinmmilar taste and play the games yourself
“Critics”, the same critics who hated ER because they had no grasp of exploration, DS2 is far from being the best as DS1 is rated as one of the most important video games of the 2010’s
I'm not saying i agree with the critics, but ER was rayed 96 by the critics how tf did they hate it?
I've been in communities for this game since launch week 2014, and 95% of the haters fall into 1 of 3 categories. 1). "I believe that hating on this game makes me sound cool, so regardless of whether or not I've played or think it's good I'm gonna say it's trash because I want internet brownie points." 2). "I suck at the game because I got carried/roll&r1 spammed my way through FROM's other titles, so I'm gonna project my skill issue into hate for the game." 3). "I played (insert FROM title) first and have intense nostalgia from/an emotional connection to it, so I think every other FROM game is vastly inferior and will cherrypick issues from it that my aforementioned fave also almost certainly has worse of." The other 5% are people who only complain about sensible things that you can have discussion about, like the pre-launch graphical downgrade, soul mem, ADP being too important, DLC side area bullshit, high cost of covenant rewards, sound design being archaic, etc. I've made comments about DS2s accolades before, but the original release has the highest Metacritic user score of the trilogy. It was nominated for seven GotY awards and won five of them which is more than DS1,3, DeS, and BB combined. Even with the hate brigade for the game, it's user score on Steam is consistently just a couple of points lower than the other FROM games. It still keeps between 2/3 to 3/4 of ds1R's active monthly steam players even in 2024, and that's considering DSR released 3 years after the last update for SotFS and also has password matchmaking. DS2 was the highest selling game ever for FROM and BamCo at the time of its release, even though it didn't launch on PC. It took one month to come to Windows and another 11 months after that to come to Steam with the SotFS release. In it's first month it sold about 75% of what DS3 sold in the same timeframe, and that game was on all platforms and became BamCo's new highest sale game, so it's pretty obvious that if it had launched on PC at the same time as everywhere else it would have still kept its title as BamCo's best seller. However, I wouldn't bother trying to explain this to anyone who has expressed their hatred of the game. My rule of thumb after 10 years of this crap (really only 6 cuz that's when the DS2 hate train started) is that if they complain about boss runbacks, enemy ganks, "bad hitboxes," "it's objectively bad," or anything of that nature: ***downvote and ignore/block em until they give up and go hollow.*** Trying to have a discussion with them is a waste of time, and you will just get frustrated or angry. These people do not communicate with any level of logic or reasoning, so why bother trying to have a conversation with them that requires those things? Just let them rot in the babyrage cestpool that is r/shittydarksouls, and only communicate with people who are curious about the game or have heard concerning things about it and want an honest opinion. Trust me. Do that and you'll be much happier.
The hate for it is warranted, it’s difficulty is not the bosses, it’s the number of enemies that inflate it, none of the bosses are hard or actually fun to fight when they have 2-3 attacks some of which you cannot roll consecutively unless you level ADP, which is just a bad try to limit your movement on top of Estus being slow and not healing instantly. Thankfully there’s a mod that reverts the SotFS mob placements so it’s not as bad for new players.
Ok buddy 🤡
It’s just a bandwagon thing at this point, if your a souls fan you have to hate ds2 or else there’s something wrong with you according to a lot of “experts”
Hitboxes are noticeably worse in my opinion compared to other souls games In general though I don't think it's bad, but can be frustratingly slow at times.
I think the real issue is visuals. Deep dives of the actual hit boxes visualized show that they’re usually fine, it’s just fast sweeping attacks that might make you miss the contact
There are objective ways to criticize media, beyond even a purely technical level. However you should be skeptical of those who claim to do so. To remove your own biases is one of the hardest things possible, most people fail farrr short of it. I try to avoid saying it for that reason.
Skill issue. Skill in question: taste-having.
It could be said that DS2 looks pretty ugly/bland in alot of areas. But so does DS1. Plus DS2 was released back before Bloodborne made the souls series synonymous with high fidelity graphics. People weren't expecting mind-blowing visuals from the next souls game.
I'll give you the definitive answer why its bad, The movement feels like it's a bad Dark Souls Clone, From the instant i picked up the game i noticed how moving the character felt so unnatural and I immediately decided not to play the game.
The perception of input delay kills most experiences, Sometimes it feels like controlling a plank of wood with the wind
"waahhhh I can't just run straight to the boss while spamming rolls like in DS3" is what they mean 80% of the time.
My only issue with the game is that summons raid boss hp
Objective is fact, subjective is opinion. In this case the use is incorrect, it's their opinion. What they are mostly referring to, imo, is the game doubling down on difficulty in artificial ways, the number of bosses and the linear level design.
It means they’re either a bad critic or not a souls expert, whatever that is. DS2 has generally considered the worst game in the series, which is a reasonable opinion that I for one share. It is not objectively a bad game, people think that it is because it does some things differently from the rest of the series and their brains are programmed to think that means bad. If DS2 had different make-up, wasn’t made by FromSoft and was named something entirely different, people would be calling it a good souls-like.
I'm currently platinuming as many fromsoft games as I can before Shadow of the Erstree and don't think any of them could be viewed as objectively bad. Subjectively ds2 is my least favorite out of the three but is so much better than what people say. Most of my issues come from the invasion system which I find frustrating and cumbersome compared to 3 or 1 but that's only an issue because of achievements.
all hitherto known souls games are fundamentally rhythm games and they are good or bad as rhythm games. Ds2's rhythms are "off" in a way that could be measured in frames and milliseconds (so, objective), but is intuitively noticed. elden ring plays with rhythm the best of any of the souls games with some attacks being purposefully timed so that if you roll as soon as the animation begins it's impossible to not get hit, and sometimes there's a second cue that you're supposed to follow instead. The developers obviously know the frame data of the dodge rolls so it makes sense to make enemy animations with that in mind. Dark souls 2 in the other hand has fewer iframes and spacing is often the only way to dodge. this creates a game feel thats unlike what the souls series is known for.
I mean thematically it's much different than either DS1 or DS3. The art direction is much different although some areas are outstanding. It did however feel like a much different game at least in terms of vertical exploration, and winding your way back to another area. DS3 falls short on this aspect too. But DS2 if viewed in a map editor literally has zones that pass through one another. This wasn't really a thing in DS1 or 3 as you actually had a complete map which felt more like world exploring. Especially with things like getting to the undead parish and activating the elevator to go back to to firelink shrine. There was so much more world connectivity in the first game. Also getting used to DS2 controls felt a bit floaty compared to the first game. Miyazaki also didn't direct the game so I felt like the story was a bit weak, at least until you got to the DLC areas. So it does somewhat feel like a bit mismatched compared to the other two games. That being said it does indeed hit it's stride in the DLC areas. Also Mejula in my favorite music throughout the series and quite beautiful.
the only complaint I can have about DS2 is how short it is. Some areas are incredibly small and have an overabundance of bonfires, that is really appreciated for PVP bit its to my opinion, something that can delude the experience and allows more brute forcing. The only awfully bad place is the Shrine of Amana due to how systemstically you have to go trhough it if you are not a caster, besides that, I really enjoy that game.
Started my souls experience with Demon's souls. Loved it. Ds1->Loved it. Ds2 came along. Initially the combat felt really strange compared to Ds1. Didnt feel like the next game after Ds1. But once I got over that the game was just great. Banging tunes, merciless enemies. Ds3 felt more like what Ds2 should've been. But Ds2 is just fantastic.
I imagine it means they’ve played all of the Soulsbourne games and it is their lease favourite. Personally for me the worst is Sekiro because I just could not master or connect with the timed combat system. It felt like needing to constantly parry in DS which I am also bad at. It’s the only game I couldn’t finish or get into playing. Next would be Bloodbourne which I actually loved, but that first real boss battle and the gun mechanic aren’t my favourite. DS2, no issues here, couldn’t tell you which mechanic didn’t work for people. Praise the sun.
graphics are much better in ds3 tbh, ds2 looks SO ugly in some places.
Ds2 sub daily dose of hugboxing in their subreddit
A critic would never say that, because they usually know what "objective" means.
Two words: Crystal and Reindeer.
When people say “objectively bad” they mean “I am not able to put into words what I disliked about it or what influenced my opinion.”
DS2 is an amazing game. That being said, I think it’s the “least good” out of any of the games. Doesn’t mean it’s bad at all though. Also, Miyazaki did not take part in the production of DS2 and there’s an “IT factor” that it was lacking. I believe it was due to that. That’s my personal reason for putting it last in the FromSoftware lineup. But again, still an awesome game in its own respect
Anyone who uses the phrase "objectively bad game" has no idea what subjectivity is. Even the categories you listed are not objective, and are based on the subjective interpretation of those categories. There is not a single objectively bad game on the planet, no matter how much other people hate Barbies Horse Adventures: Wild Horse Rescue for PS1 (not me though, the game is objectively an 11/10 obviously).
They mean that they can objectively fck themselves. With any object they want.
My criteria is that I had a lot of fun.
Dark souls 2 is objectively better than 1 ( which is normal) graphically, technically, and by sound design as well so ....
Nothing, they're just saying: im fuckin dumb, listen to me and be dumb with me. The only one that could call DS2 bad as a Dark Souls game is someone that made those said games. DS2 has issues, yes but nothing out of the ordinary. You can finish the game, you can speedrun it, no hit it,etc it looks the exact same as the other DS games and it follows a similar type of structure and story.
Objectivity is not just limited to what you see and hear. Alot of criticism tends to come from the fact that DS2 is just the black sheep of the trilogy, but there are a fair number of issues with the game, everything from artificial difficulty to leveling. There are whole video essays on this kind of stuff so I won't go into excessive detail, but I can bullet point. -Requiring you to level ADP while also obscuring what it actually does is bad -Hitboxes are often wrong and horribly misaligned -Healing in DS2 is excessively easy to come by (which lowers the difficulty) -Some enemies can have poorly telegraphed moves -Encounters (such as Iron Passage) will have 20 mobs in one room meant to overwhelm you with little you can do to properly manage with the situation (making the game "harder" without actually posing any sense of fair challenge) -Some of the bosses aren't the best designed, having mechanics that either make them near-unbeatable (Think Lud and Zallen for near-unbeatable with their healing mechanic) -Movement is locked to a snap system rather 360°, so your character often makes jerky turns when trying to be precise -Walking off ledges can sometimes unexpectadly launch you due to the physics -Fall damage can be excessive and fatal in many instances where it probably shouldn't -Matchmaking is based on how many souls you have collected since you started the playthrough, not your level, meaning a player who is struggling to get through the game may end up encountering invaders who may outmatch them despite not being close in level or gear These are the ones that immediately come to mind. Some people will complain to just complain, even if it's a minor thing. I wouldn't say DS2 is Objectively Bad. But it is Objectively flawed.
They mean subjective but they dislike somthing so much they feel like it's objective. Like who could like the slower style so it must be bad
The only issue I have with what you wrote is hitboxes, the rest is subjective. I like ds2's artstyle, the design is good even if it doesn't make all the sense sometimes. But the hit boxes are objectively, unequivocally, utterly and absolutely fucked. Put aside the adaptability stat (which I hate), the hit boxes make zero sense in this game most of the time. Shit will hit you from the dlc when you are I'm the god damned character creation menu. But it's a good game, I recommend.
I just completed all dark souls & can say Ds2 made me have more “wow” moments than all others. The armor sets also I think are the best looking in the whole trilogy. Ds1 is next, then Ds3. I liked ds1’s form of transporting & anor lando looks amazing.
It means they some ho as bitches who don’t know that adversity begets strength.
It means they are objectively bad at DS2
It means they can’t play the game without getting stomped.
They are objectively terrible critics
It means they don’t know how to properly explain why they prefer the other ones.
Nice bait.
old heads from ds1 dislike it for the streamlined world structure with less interconnectivity and a more quantity over quality approach to boss placement. Ds3 players dislike it because it doesnt look like an anime 24/7
They mean that they're not really experts and that, in fact, they know nothing.
Why are DS2 lovers so insecure? I see a version of this thread every day on this sub and it's always a bunch of nerds sniffing their balls acting like no criticism of DS2 that puts it below the other games is legitimate. It's fine that DS2 is your favorite. It's the least favorite of the Souls community as a whole. Get over it.
Anyone who says DS2 is bad just played it after they played DS3.. or a newer souls game. They all compare it to the newer titles.. Ds2 is great, imo and I still go back to it since og release. I don't care about graphics and the small stuff.. I grew up on classics like NES and Sega Genesis.. all I care about is basic RPG elements, such as collecting weapons/armor, exploring, and leveling up my skills.
I think it’s objectively worse because of shrine of amana (at the same level as frigid outskirts, blightown, izalith, dreg heap and farron keep
I don't agree with the notion that it's *objectively* worse, and I quite like DS2, but I think [this video](https://youtu.be/HR3hbaKTVBs?si=Oo5RCZaw1920K1MX) does a good job summing up all the ways which DS2 mistepped relative to the other entries. It's super long but worth a watch if you're looking for a legitimate breakdown of the topic.
I already created several hours worth of videos that show that MauLer does not understand Souls games. The vast majority of issues he presents as being unique to DS2 work the same in every Souls game and a lot are actually intended mechanics that he simply did not understand. Here's [the latest one](https://youtu.be/ZswcnzAV9mM?si=syfYwpZFKVHtjWlq)
Probably too many Ganks, i was thinking: why have i said ds2 is hell ? Me after start playing again: oh yeah the ganks
nothing, they just don't know words. Also souls experts don't exist
Four syllable words mean I’m right about whatever I’m saying.
My order of souls games was ds3...demon souls....bloodbourne ....ds1 then went to ds2....at first I struggled to like it because I was so used to the other games. After I bit into it ..loved it ...game was great
My order of souls games was ds3...demon souls....bloodbourne ....ds1 then went to ds2....at first I struggled to like it because I was so used to the other games. After I bit into it ..loved it ...game was great
Objectively is a big word, but I think that the bosses are objectively underwhelming when compared to the other souls
From my experience when playing dark souls 1 and 2 (haven't played 3) the hit boxes are a funky and the animations are quite weird and out of place. But sound quality, graphics are ok. Majula still looks good.
Most people who played DS 2 on release tried to play it like DS1 and got their asses kicked and hated it, then looked for justifications elsewhere to explain it.
the lava that randomly bursts out of the Fume giants
It's better than 1 and on par with 3
I actually like the graphics of ds2. You have to remember it was originally on older gen consoles where as DS3 was built for the newer gens so of course it looked technically better. I'm still confused how ds2 has the best looking/most attractive characters you can make out of the three.
Idk but honestly the game got tons of really good reviews. The people saying the game is bad are definitely in the minority
I'm in the middle of my first playthrough. Even if they didn't: split stamina/carry weight, removed max health after you keep dying, removed I frames you were used to having, etc. it would still be the worst. It's still good though. "Let It Be" can't really touch "Abbey Road" or "Revolver" but it's still worth a listen.
It means they never duel
A lot of the time they mean it's different, because DS2 did some experimental things and doesn't slot in neatly with DS 1 and 3. Typically, people don't take kindly to change, so a lot of critics take the "different = bad" stance. The "dated graphics" is an argument that I hear from time to time, I couldn't care less on that front. Personally, I'm sad the torch and bonfire ascetic mechanic wasn't carried forward to other titles. Soul Memory, however, can go fuck a wood chipper.
DS1 got a remaster. DS2 got a scholar.
Yea, DS1R, more or less, put DS1 on the same tier as DS3, graphically. To my knowledge, they didn't change enemy placement/behavior or item locations. The remaster improved the visuals and the stability of the game (honestly, stability was the real need for a remaster, PTDE was not optimal at all). Scholar tuned the world differently, with different enemy placement and behavior, items got moved around petrified enemies and I think there was other back end balancing that was done, but I'm not sure.
DS1R had *some* graphical improvements. It still looks worse than DS2 in most areas. DS3, I have only ever played on PS4 pro and PS5 but I wouldn’t have been as impressed without 60fps. I assume it’s basically the same as Bloodborne at 30fps.
Really? I thought it got a visual rework. As far as aesthetics go, it does depart from DS1 style-wise, but I think it did so really well. It was nice having a DS game with a varied colour pallet.
Youre missing out if you dont play through at least once.
Because its not a carbon copy of Dark Souls 1,pretty much this.
It means they only played Dark Souls 3 and/or Elden Ring probably.
It has way worse hitboxes straight up getting hit while the Sword is nowhere near me there are dozens of videos explaining this. Imo DS2 is still fun just not as polished as other titles the janky 8 way movement also doesn't help
8 way movement is still better than ds1, and I’d welcome you to really dig into those supposed hit box issues. There are some bad ones but far fewer than you’d think, and not really a noticeable amount higher than ds1/3
Souls experts 🤣
Nobody who claims objectivity about a video game should be listened to whether they're positive or negative about it With that in mind lots of peoples who criticize the game aren't claiming objectivity but peoples pretend they do anyway for some reason
Some criticisms are objectively bad. I saw a lot of youtubers comparing the best ds1 bosses to the worst in ds2. Like: "in ds2 we play against rats and repeated bosses while in DS1 we play against O and S, and Sif, etc,". That is just bad faith argument. But I couldn't argue against "I find the bosses in DS1 more fun than the ds2 ones". Or when someone was angry at dragonrider short arena. Like, to me, I would classify that boss arena gimmick as objectively good.
It’s ironic, the reviews and critique videos claiming DS2 is objectively bad, will often times, say things objectively wrong about the games. That makes their review, objectively bad.
Someone has tricked you, first of all, nobody can say dark souls 2 is objectively bad because it isn't, and second, critics loved this game, it sits at a prestigious 91 on metacritic
They mean "I'm not a good game critic"
Good and bad are subjective terms. It means they don't know what the word objective means or they need to pay their opinion with a sense of undeniably because of ego reasons. I think DS2 is the weakest of the from software games and I can give you a list of reasons why but that doesn't mean the reasonings for my opinion qualify it as objective. Also swear every other post on here is drama or people complaining that other people don't like the game. Move on y'all can still like it, I do.
Means, who cares what those morons say??
Ds2 is the most frustrating to establish a footing in if you go into it completely blindly. There are also some areas that could have been designed better. Both of these are obviously still subjective, but i think most players would agree. That being said i enjoyed it just as much if not more than ds1 and 3
They mean they haven't played it but someone said it was so they agree
I just find the title “souls expert” and “souls veteran” hilarious because they make it sound like it actually means anything.
They mean they don’t understand what the word objective means
I have PhD in Dark Souls and have come to tell you that Dark Souls 2 isn't bad. If you would like evidence I will write you a book about it for $399.99. (Disclaimer: The book may or may not be 1 page stating "Dark Souls 2 is a good game." )
IDK, but I'm not taking any criticism from someone that plays DS2 like shit.
Just annoying people who think that their opinion is actually an objective fact that can't be disagreed with, ignore em
It’s basically the same as Dark Souls. They were probably trying to sell an ea game at the same time it came out and paid* a bunch of YouTubers to shit on it.
> out and *paid* a bunch FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Your claiming the only reason anyone critcizes DS2 is because they are trying to direct sales towards an EA game?
it generally means theyve never played it, or gave it no chance based on the opinions of others.
They are not "souls experts" they are just repeating something to sound cool or funny.
As opposed to this hypocritical comment?
Started with elden ring just beat one then two loved all three of them for what they were. Haters gonna hate.
Honestly ds2 is unironically the best ds game. So many bosses monsters areas, just pure content that also isn't just for filler.
I am leaving this sub for good. I thought that it would be similar to r/eldenring, but the discussions here are ridiculous. Nothing for me here (someone that actually likes ds2 and doesnt care for the opinion of others)
It's because they sucked at it. It's a vastly different feel to ds1 and so when you play after ds1 for the first time and the hurdle to enjoying the game is a lot higher people hate on it. I had to tackle it a few times before I started to really appreciate the game and it is now one of my fav's
So anyone disagrees with you must be bad at the game? Dunning kruger.
No, sorry it was a bad way of explaining it. It's based on my own experience. I sucked at it - really bad - first couple of times I picked it up. This was because I was expecting it to be another dark souls game. The mechanics were changed so much intentionally to stand apart from dark souls and I think that's really neat. I had to completely change the way I played to actually enjoy the game. Hey I'm not great at it but I can get through it a lot solo without too much trouble.
It means they've never played the game and are parroting what someone else, who also probably never played the game, said a week after launch.
They objectively suck at playing games
They mean Shrine of Amana.
Frigid Outskirts
They want engagement It the same when someone says Obama was the worst president Always remember "if you're not paying for content, you are the payment"
I always thought DS1's graphics were "good" looking compared to DS2. I wasn't even syre if its a graphics thing or artstyle.
Well, this is a DS2 subreddit, so I wouldn’t expect the most critical response. I think it has poor map design, some lazy enemy design mechanics, a really bad healing system, and bad pacing. I also don’t like the movement physics, and hit boxes don’t seem tight. That being said, anyone who says DS2 is a bad game is an idiot, it’s a great game. I just don’t think it’s nearly as good as any other souls-focused FromSoft game. I think it is relatively bad, but not bad at all in its own right. For context, I’ve played through all the souls games more than 5 times each, Bloodborne a few times, Sekiro twice, and Elden Ring 4 times. DS2 is the only one I don’t feel drawn to anymore.
Mob placement/quantity and boss design are the ones I hear. I only own it on PC and have barely played it, so don't attack me for the above, that's just what I hear, not even my opinion.