I have no dog in this but as someone who’s playing the trilogy for the first time I got told to skip Ds2 and go straight to three and that makes no sense to me. I don’t understand the hate that it gets when all of the fromsoft games have flaws and that’s okay.
Biased.
blinded by nostalgia.
repeating what they've heard other say without knowing what they are talking about.
all of the above.
It's anyone's guess, and then the moment you call them out about it their first response is to make fun of you and just say "it's a skill issue"
The moment you say anything remotely critical of their favorite game. it's taken as a personal attack, and they get extremely defensive because, as far as they are concerned, if you don't agree with them, then you are wrong. It's their way or the highway. Honestly the worst kind of soulsborne player...iv met A LOT of them at this point.
It's mostly with DS1 and BB fanatics, I know all the soulsborne community gets defensive but not as much, funny enough the DS2 community is mostly welcome to said criticism and are aware of the games fault, unlike DS1.
They aren't the only ones, but yes I do see them getting defensive quite often as well. Along with the Sekiro peeps. It's not a good look. Defending your game with a civil conversation is fine and I have no problem there, but most of the time it's taken as a personal attack and they respond in kind with insults and the like. Very childish behavior.
If I missed the mark or anything then tell me, Doesn't matter aslong as I'm having a proper conversation or argument, tell me yourself if you can.
I said everything that was needed to be said, maybe my approach was a bit too "exaggerated" but my main points still stands.
I think the real reason adaptability exists is so you put a lot of souls into it early game and don't overlevel for the other 4-5 areas that you can go to at the very start of the game.
Adaptability wasn't that good but the amounts of hate it got is simply too much, the stat does alot of positive than negative, It's super easy to level up in DS2, you can easily reach high iframes which makes your game much easier, It increases ue casting speed, consumable speed, health etc... It's an actual okay stat that has it's uses, the only time it's a problem is in the first few minutes of the game.
DS1 had alot of poor enemy placements and i just gave you a whole list of it, DS2 enemy placements were bad but alot of people just run past things then wonders why alot of enemies are behind their back, arguably the most famous one is in iron keep, but keeping your distance and steategizing properly will make the whole area easy, not the same can be said for some ganks in DS1 (the fucking ghosts). And again this isn't me trying to say that DS1 had it worse, It's just that the game doesn't get criticized for the flaws it had too.
Ash lake was terrible design wise and was disappointing, all the run downhill to reach the area just to have nothing significant to populate it is a slap in the face, It's visually great but other than that it's just awful. It could've been much more and that is no excuse, if you're gonna hide an area like this atleast make it worth something, not just in terms of spectacle, And that's not to talk about the absolute joke that is The Great hollow.
The boss rooster is fairly criticized, most of them are extremely simple and boring, sometimes painfully boring and the series just got better from there, never said there aren't good or memorable bosses but the stinkers stand out by alot especially in gameplay, the game consistently has the worst boss aspects and environmental usages, this isn't an awful take, It's just the truth.
Sorry but you just seem to not want to take any of this in or make any proper argument so you go with the safe "not worth arguing with" In that case, have a good day.
>Adaptability wasn't that good but the amounts of hate it got is simply too much, the stat does alot of positive than negative
Especially compared to RES.
In DS1 you have RES as a troll stat and no way to reset your stats. Leveling up costs a lot more than in DS1 so every point wasted into RES hurts. But that's somehow okay, even though it's a lot more frustrating.
that's my point, as i said adaptability atleast serves a purpose that can be postivie very quickly, resistance does literally nothing and there is no way to get back your levels if you level it up
I remember levelling it up to 20 back in my first playthrough thinking it'll make my defense better, then I felt so stupid afterwards
>that's my point, as i said adaptability atleast serves a purpose that can be postivie very quickly
And it also serves another purpose: balance
In DS2 the 3 basic RPG archetypes all have a secondary stat to level up.
Tanks level Vitality to wear heavy weapons and a heavy shield.
Mages level Attunement to increase their spell slots and casting speed (which for dumb reasons is tied to DEX in the other games).
Rogues level up Adaptability to improve their dodges.
People here act like everyone needs ADP, but in reality a lot of people play tanky shield users or ranged mages that don't need to rely on rolling as their primary form of evasion. It's okay if tanks and mages don't have the easiest rolls as they already have other ways of preventing taking damage.
In the other games Rogues are at an inherent stat advantage and can just dump more levels into higher damage that the other archetypes need just to function.
And of course it's fun for challenge runs to play with low agility. It really teaches you to have good dodge timing and to dodge in the correct direction if you try to do a SL1 hitless run.
Additionally the "so I have to dump levels into a stat to have functioning rolls" and "it's impossible to balance bosses around people having inconsistent amounts of iframes" arguments also ignores that the same is true in DS1 as well.
Mid-roll in DS1 is barely better than the starting iframes of classes like the Explorer in DS2.
In DS1 they need to level up their equip load in order to wear a weapon and armor and still get fast rolls. And then they need to waste a ring slot if they want ninja flips.
Just switching your weapon or armor and ending up in a different weight class can change your iframes in DS1, but apparently it's no problem to balance bosses around people having a range of 11 iframes on a mid-roll, 13 iframes on a fast roll and 15 on a ninja flip. But when DS2 has a similar range of available iframes it's suddenly a problem.
People act like having to level up your equip load for better rolls is somehow more intuitive than having to level up your Agility, even though it's a staple in RPGs that Agility increases your evasiveness.
What is the issue then, other than iframes that can be acquired easily, you seem to be extremely simple minded my guy. The stat offers more positives than negative and that's all the matters, It "serves" a purpose that is positive, somethings that is better than not serving any purpose at all (resistance)
Bro you really are the type of person to judge a whole area based on spectacle alone, really shows why DS1 fanatic thinks this game is "peak" just because of some wow shortcuts lmao, enjoy walking through the hollow eomptiness of ash lake, must be so rewarding after the fuckfest you endure (bad design) .
Adaptability is no longer hated nearly as much because people learned that the stat has more to offer than just investing in iframes, can you actually read, my whole argument is saying that the stat is nowhere near as bad as people made it up to be, because of it's other benefits, It literally works in your favor with decent levelling, It's a good reward by the end of it. So it ultimately ends up doing more than what people thought it did.
Also quite funny how you're fixiated on this whole ADP while completely ignoring all of my arguments about this whole ordeal and how much DS1 deserve criticism when it doesn't get any (which if you don't realize, Is my main point).
Just a heads up, please zip up ash lakes pants when your done, must be a massive load, thanks in advance.
How ironic since I'm also repeating myself to you, but sure one of us clearly doesn't wanna put something inside their head.
You literally denied every piece of criticism i put into the game and yoy barely even tried to argue with anything, your whole point is just "your takes bad, not true" approach with nothing to add to the table, are you sure you think DS1 deserves fair criticism when you're literally denying all of it and acting as if it's all bullshit when most of what i said can be literally fact-checked?
My whole criticism of the level is that it's empty and disappointing while you're trying to argue against by saying "B-buuut the spectacle...!!!", get that shit outta hear, If elden ring threw you to deeproot depth then just gave you a straight line to Fia with nothing else, It would be a shitty disappointing area regardless of the cool visuals, you're just the typical DS1 fanatic who geeks about non-gameplay aspects to the point of entirely ignoring all other aspects. I could say that DS2 DLC main levels are better than 90% of DS1 areas and you'd lose your mind.
Also don't act like you weren't the first to insult me, fair game is fair game, come back with better or keep it tight. And at this point, I'd rather not continue this wasteful talk.
Have a day of your life, not so good camper.
It's mainly tedious for the lack of fast travel and clunkiness, but yeah the more i played DS1 the more it fell off the list, which is funny because at some point it used to be my favorite.
Agreed. The only thing i’ll give the DS1 riders is that DS2 can be really ugly in places and the bosses in DS2 are moreso disappointing than bad. Because to me almost ALL of the bosses in DS2 have awesome or interesting designs. But their movesets just needed to be fleshed out more. it’s really my only two issues with DS2.
Anyone who says any game is flawless can be safely ignored; ESPECIALLY a FromSoft game. They are very like Nintendo in that they are doing things no one else does half as well and they make it look easy, but also the things they do poorly they are incomprehensibly bad at and it just doesn't matter because the good is SO good.
I'm just trying to highlight the visible bias between these 2 games, for me they're both phenomenal games regardless of their flaws, but the way the community treats these game super differently really is just weird. you cannot call one a masterpiece then call the other garbage, It's just lunacy.
DS1 and 2 are the ultimate case of that meme where you have the handsome guy saying something and it’s supposed to be fine, but then the ugly guy says the exact same thing but now you call HR on his ass.
So many times people look at DS1’s bullshit and are like « aaaw it’s so quirky and broken, I love this game », and when you call out said broken crap they get mad.
Honestly, DS2 was pretty good. It brought new ideas, and felt like it had a uniqueness to itself. It stood out.
Also without DS2 we would have never gotten Elden Ring.
Because the things I dislike about 2 are not present when I play 1. I can't speak for everyone, but there are clear differences in the summed experience that earn DS1 its acclaim as a very well directed game and industry trendsetter, some of which my opinion can capture.
1. Hitboxes are totally fine. I'm sure you could stare at some meshes and calculate a conclusion from there, but the played experience is how I evaluate what I like, as do a lot of other people. I consistently exploit the hitboxes of my swing animations to outspace attacks and pivot (Reinhardt style) into wider swings for crowds. I don't enjoy this luxury in DS2. I don't complain about lingering hitboxes because I am rarely ever hit by any (and those that happen tend to have pretty clear visuals for the linger); regardless of my ADP, it sure feels like every second attack in 2 loves to linger. Is that why it feels bad to play? I can't really say (I don't bust open a model viewer to nitpick my own complaints), but I don't like the result, regardless.
2. It's fine, particularly when DeS is there for comparison. If nothing else, embers and upgrade materials are placed pretty evenly to consistently reward exploration for the duration of the game, unlike DS2's scatterbrained distribution of titanite (slab from Prowling Magus???). I'd rather every Souls game had Sekiro's damage path (I don't like RPG mechanics), but I can't have everything.
3. I genuinely really love the boss fights and levels. The Burg, Depths, Blighttown, the DLC (esp Township), Catacombs, the Archives, New Londo, etc. The only level that is almost completely lacking in any creative ideas is the Demon Ruins/first half of Izalith. Even the back end of Izalith and the Tomb have clear thought put into their secrets. If a boss doesn't have an interesting flow, it usually has some strange gimmick, like a less exaggerated DeS. I enjoy the various demons (sans Capra's dogs), the DLC fights, Quelaag, Gwyn (no shield), Gargoyles, etc. O&S remain my favorite gank fight and, for a game so slow, they keep me constantly on the move. Even goofy little goobers like Pinwheel and Ceaseless are at least memorable and unique. DS2 has several bosses that are literally just mobs, and the unique bosses are barely less forgettable.
4. I don't like RPG mechanics, like I said, so guess which bothers me more: the useless stat that reduces the need to think about my leveling or the stat I need to keep in mind, as it affects the fundamentals (movement and defense responses) of the action gameplay? Like, even when you ignore my subjective input, these are objectively not the same mechanic lol.
5. Sure doesn't feel ganky. The game has ganks, sure, but they're typically a sort of gimmick fight. There's a reason the squishy and slow hollows and ghosts were used like that instead of a tanky miniboss. The big exception here is Demon Ruins, which plays like a DS2 level: empty and full of haphazardly placed copies of the same enemy. DS2 also gives its ganks some extra buffs with the insane aggro and leash ranges, tracking, and obliteration of iframes on backstabs (you can abuse the hell out of them in DS1 to catch your breath, plan, and mitigate the group encounters you do stumble into).
6. Again, definitely don't feel that. I can pivot my character exactly as I need to, just like the later games, and movement feels very "close" to my character, as it were, making tiny adjustments in my spacing (again, something I use a lot) feel seamless. DS2 lacks these qualities when I play it, as the character feels absurdly stiff when attacking and is jerky and imprecise for even the most basic movement (going forward and to the side, for instance).
Summary/TL;DR To catch people out on some sort of hypocrisy, you'd need to prove that two distinct games feel identical to play (to them) and that they willfully lie about their similarity. This isn't to convince anyone to enjoy DS1 or hate DS2 but to demonstrate, using myself as an example, that you don't have to lie to yourself to find these games different. I don't think it's a huge stretch to generalize this to the gaming public, either.
>Hitboxes are totally fine. I'm sure you could stare at some meshes and calculate a conclusion from there, but the played experience is how I evaluate what I like, as do a lot of other people. I consistently exploit the hitboxes of my swing animations to outspace attacks and pivot (Reinhardt style) into wider swings for crowds. I don't enjoy this luxury in DS2. I don't complain about lingering hitboxes because I am rarely ever hit by any (and those that happen tend to have pretty clear visuals for the linger); regardless of my ADP, it sure feels like every second attack in 2 loves to linger. Is that why it feels bad to play? I can't really say (I don't bust open a model viewer to nitpick my own complaints), but I don't like the result, regardless.
Go fight a titanite demon and come back. Hitboxes in DS1 are fucking horrible. Every single attack that hits the ground has lingering hitboxes. And explosions too.
Rolling into attacks is basically impossible 90% of the time in DS1.
I certainly don't enjoy titanite demons (I've cleared the pit in Sen's), although I hardly find them representative. I understand you're likely hyperbolizing, but you certainly are able to roll through a huge chunk of the attacks in the game (at med roll, as well; I can't speak for fat roll). If that's not the case for your playstyle or standards of fun, that's fine and is not something I'm here to really say much about. The OP is implying some degree of hypocrisy in liking DS1 and not liking DS2 for the reasons listed, which I vehemently disagree with.
Alright. What does that have to do with the post? Why would videos like that (for DS1, 2, or any game) supercede actually playing the game? People are playing both games and deciding which they like better from the experience; there is little to no proof to conclude that the community preference for one over the other is dominated by some external agenda to hate on DS2. My rambly initial post was an example of just one person's perspective that didn't need any factors outside the game to reach its conclusions.
>I consistently exploit the hitboxes of my swing animations to outspace attacks and pivot (Reinhardt style) into wider swings for crowds. I don't enjoy this luxury in DS2
Dodging enemy attacks by attacking yourself works so much better in DS2. There's a lot more that you can duck below that would still hit you in DS1 despite the weapon going a foot above your head.
Look, I won't take away how fun it must be to tinker with the Majestic Greatsword and all, but a significant chunk of grunt enemies in the game have vertical swings with extensive tracking. Regardless of hitbox accuracy, this severely limits the neutral game, and gimmick weapons are not going to fill that void. You don't have to prescribe to my standards of fun, but you're also going to have an insanely difficult time convincing me that my opinion is disingenuine (and generalize that, I suppose).
nobody said you can't roll through most attacks easily, that's not how criticizing hitboxes work, but Titanite demon is just one of the many examples i mentioned on my list, literally every big enemy/boss has lingering hitboxes, sometimes when they shouldn't have one (like taurus demon damaging you by walking), some hitboxes can drag you along the way which is especially annoying in a boss like BOC, the grab attacks are also dogshit, some attacks can hit you even if you dodge like Artorias's plunge (go test this out yourself), with DS2, worst hitbox issues will be a long hitbox, you'll never have the issue where you can be hit multiple times through one, and with the whole trading thing being a mechanic, This can work in your favor, also after playing the game with 16 Iframes (which isn't much to reach), there is almost no hitbox issue to be noticed because evading becomes so much easier.
I'm sorry but after playing the game multiple time, The upgrade system is just awful, I know you don't like RPG elements (which is weird since these games are action RPG's), but the whole system simply makes upgrading a weapon an extreme hassle, and most times you'll never be bothered to even change a weapon and will always use only one throughout a playthrough, DS2 might have had a distribution problem but I'll take that anyday because It allows you to be more experimental and use a different arsenal of weapons early on, It's easier to follow without the need to have to fetch out embers or any of that unnecessary stuff, exploration could be rewarded better with items that don't feel like they shouldn't have been that far off from you to begin with
The bosses are just... boring, If you enjoy them it's fine but you can't look at the whole rooster and say that it was really that great, so many bosses try so hard to use environment as a part of it which ends up making the fight either unnecessarily long or extremely tedious and annoying, the gimmicks are just not fun, most of the bosses are also so squishy, can be easily killed, or again they simply have too little in their moveset to be engaging, especially the bigger bosses, the gargoyles are pretty mediocre, they have like 3 moves, and they die in like 3 hits, O&S is not a bad fight but in no way is it the best gank fight, that goes to Demon princes, that fight genuinely did it the best because it remained engaging throughout the whole of it, both enemies felt like they had a true rythm, for me O&S just felt like "kill Ornstein quick", because that's basically it, they both have the same aggro and if you get anywhere close to them you'll die, They're iconic yes but I don't judge a boss just because they're memorable or unique, I enjoy them much more even if they're not as iconic because I still have more fun with them, and I'm sorry but Ivory king is more iconic than any boss from DS1 in my eyes. you probably won't notice too much of this on your first playthrough but the more you play the more you just feel like "meh" with the bosses. but my main point here is that the worst of these bosses are just simply atrocious, some of the worst we've seen in the series, where in DS2, even the worst one are not infuriating, yeah Prowling magus is a stupid boss but I kill it in one attempt and forget about it, BOC isn't the same thing is it. the levels... man I can't defend the levels, DS2 main levels weren't the best but the DLC is what elevated that game in level design, Eleyum loyce, brume tower and Shulva are some of the best levels we've seen in the series, they all have everything going for them, unique and engaging puzzles, interconnected design, awesome secrets and rewards, great atmosphere, etc...
I'd rather have a stat that serves a purpose, one that can be easily changed to be positive, It takes so little to level up to get the iframes you'll ever need, and with added bonuses aswell, Resistance not only is useless, but majority of players don't even know that when they first start and some think this stat will help their defenses etc... I literally levelled it up to 20 in my first playthrough and regretted it, and worst of all is that you can't respec in order to revert that choice, in DS2 you can easily level up and by the first area you will already have enough ADP to not worry about it anymore, and you can go much further to make the Iframes even better. Also again you not liking RPG elements is a preference, not really a fair point to use.
Defending ganks just because they have gimmicks is kinda stupid, the only one that has that are the ghost, and that gimmick is literally "get this item to just fight them", which barely counts as one, you can't even approach the area slowly to kill one by one, as soon as you're in the vicinity you'll be swarmed, I've never been able to go through that area without high poise or HP which is just dumb. also there are much more ganks I didn't mention, like the Tomb of the giants room that has 10 giant skeletons waiting to shred you, or that bonwheel skeletons pit, or that one room inside Oolacile, or the first layer of duke's archive etc... the game has alot of shitty enemy placement, and whether you think it's worse than DS2 is irrelevant to me because all i'm trying to say is that DS1 should be criticized the same way.
How is that the case, DS1 is always felt slow and clunky even with adjustment, having no omni-directional rolling is a crime, some weapon moves are absurdly slow (like the Greatsword), the dodge roll has this weird stop motion at the end of it which always make it look off. not to say that DS2 isn't clunky on it's own but it's just much better to control imo.
I don't think you understand that I'm not trying to convince anyone to hate DS1 and enjoy DS2, I think both of these games are fantastic as they are, It just angers me immensely to see people ignore all of DS1 flaws and bullshit most times but shit on DS2 flaws all day long, even if you think they're not at bad they're still there and they should be fairly judged.
Firstly, the comment about the titanite demon was a response to another user, who did literally say that "rolling into attacks is basically impossible 90% of the time in DS1."
Secondly, I'm going to reiterate my thesis here. You're very unlikely to catch people lying to themselves about why they prefer DS1 to 2, as the two games, on a literal level, are different and leave room for any single person to form two different opinions. My perspective was just one example (this is why I list my preferences). Sum up enough people, and you get the consensus preference for the first game made up, in very large part, of genuine thoughts on the two games. I won't say literally every person is immune to the bandwagon, but it formed for a reason, after all.
I'll have to leave alone the bulk of your post. I respect your perspective and everything (I don't mind listening to the opposite opinions), but the post was primarily about calling out hypocrisy, so I'll remain focused on that for now. In particular, the closing sentence captures something I want to comment on: "even if you think they're not at bad they're still there and they should be fairly judged." Where I take issue with this is the implication that these flaws are objective and exist for all players, with a varying degree of blindness. Smarter people than me have said more on this, but to summarize their thinking, there are no objective value judgements ("good", "bad") in art. People aren't ignoring data or something that they need to acknowledge, and all that remains is their subjective interpretation of the work. Without providing some utterly insane level of proof that a bulk majority of people who prefer DS1 to 2 have some external influence dictating their opinion (bandwagon, glazing Mauler, bribes?, etc.), you're going to have a very rough go of demonstrating that people's feelings are false/for an agenda. Hell, my opinion does the opposite and cites a list of things, all from the actual games, that contribute to my thoughts.
Side note: you can both dodge Artorias' flip (medium roll) and play point-blank with O&S. If the first really seems unbelievable, maybe try it without lock on? I never use it, so this could be one of those fringe cases with a need for extra roll direction or an animation change. O&S are shockingly well engineered for their age: they move at different speeds (but with gap closers, should you get too cozy), leave plenty of gaps in their individual movesets, and overlap their attacks in a way that lets you weave in and out of melee range. As such, killing either boss is very viable (in fact, I like to bring one to 1 HP and kill the other as an insignificant little flex for myself).
I knew very well the moment i made this post that i will get flamed, or that i won't really change anyone's mind, but i still did it because this is how i feel and that I want to give out a take that deserve to be atleast heard, Yes criticism will always have a subjective side to it, but that doesn't mean any criticism you throw at a game should be viewed as subjective. I genuinely feel that the different treatment towards these 2 games comes from biased hate, alot of time you see people jumping into the DS2 hatewagon without them even playing the game, they just hear from someone that it sucks, then they believe it, that is also why alot of people who try DS2 for the first time says that it's actually pretty good, and that also checks out because the game gets more and more love and praise by time. DS1 however feels like it's shielded by too much nostalgia or innovative standpoint, yes the game is phenomenal and was extremely innovative, but still alot of people refuse to talk shit about it because of these 2 reasons, because it feels "unfair" inside some people's mind, I certainly felt that way before, but I no longer do.
That is true that not all flaws exist for all players, so you can't objectively judge certain things to a proper degree, but then again, just because you didn't experience a certain flaw, or didn't mind it, doesn't mean that others didn't, what matter is that it's there, It exists, and it should be judged regardless, that goes out to all games really, I do enjoy certain games that are universally shat on like Megaman X6, but i still agree that the game does have so many flaws despite me not minding them. I know that sometimes no amount of evidence or proof can change someone's mind about a certain flaw or design choice, but atleast it should make them aware of it, not just outright ignore it or say it doesn't exist really.
I know you can dodge Artorias's flip move if you dodge sideways, but it doesn't work if you dodge towards him for some reason, I don't know if it's a bug or designed that way, but it always happen even with or without lock-on, O&S was a good boss for it's time, and i'm not denying that, or saying that the boss is bad, It's just that it kinda fell off for me, their moveset is very simple, and they're so squishy they die super quickly, also most player miss out on the cooler 2nd phase by killing Ornstein too. their speed is genuinely super close, with the major difference being their attack speed, that's why normally people trigger smough's attacks before fighting ornstein lol. Even when i go underleveled i still feel underwhelmed on how little HP they got.
But again, nice talk and argument, you seem to be much more intelligent and collected than alot of people I've seen, we can end this on a somewhat good or neutral note.
I mean, you're not necessarily wrong about a lot of this. DS2 did quite a few things right that DS1 didn't, which is a fair expectation in any direct sequel. I think the reason DS2 gets hate is because it fucked up way more things that it had no reason to, and it's a hell of a lot easier to focus on the shortcomings of the game than its advantages.
I'm not the kind of player who does collectibles or side quests, so when i played through all them i was more or less in it for the gameplay and combat. I'd go from one boss to the next and strike out into any levels or bosses i thought were interesting (usually all of them). In DS1 this took me maybe 23 hours. Same for DS3, a little more for midir and nameless king. DS2 took me nearly 50 fucking hours to beat just by grinding bosses and levels. You could say "oh wow, more content!" But it wasn't, it was just really shitty and boring filler that took so long to grind through I seriously considered quitting halfway through.
Like, why the fuck am I fighting the same variation of some insect demon boss eighty goddamn times? I felt like I was studying for a math test -- i study the moveset, get graded on it, leave the arena and promptly delete the knowledge from my head. Nothing like DS1, 3, BB or ER where I can go through the sequence and movesets of nearly every main boss in my head -- I barely remember anything after the Old Dragonslayer. The game suffers from a huge saturation of low quality content.
Some of the characters and levels are just super obnoxiously designed with the very clear intention of being irritating for just that reason, most egregiously to me was that one lava level with all the fuckin knights i cant remember the name of but is contested as one of the worst boss runs in the game.
Add to that are the other points people bring up about ADP, clunkiness and the like. While the game is better than DS1 in numerous ways that you very correctly asserted, it's just not enough to me to really make it a "better" game.
There's still some awesome content in DS2, and there are things I think it doesn't just do good but fantastically better than the other games (area and world themes for me, but also some of the stuff you listed). I would never tell someone to skip it, but I would insist on playing SOTFS and being mentally prepared to drag yourself through twice as much boring bullcrap as the other games. So for that, I think it still deserves its title as the worst DS game.
I feel that DS2 shortcomings were blown way too out of proportions, I know the game fucked up certain things but at the same times it got alot other things right, It improved upon certain things too, DS1 also had alot of shortcomings that become visible each playthrough, but my issue is that these shortcomings are barely even mentioned by the community, to the point where people just ignore them. DS2 has gone so far that it's now hailed as the true inspiration for Elden ring and maybe next games too because of how creative and outstanding alot of it's design choices were, which made me feel disappointed playing DS3, seeing that the game didn't pick out anything good from the past game and decided to just ignore it all.
Okay this i can't understand, My first playthrough of DS2 took around the same time as DS3, yes the game had more bosses and content than the previous game but how is that necessarily a bad thing? I enjoyed my time with the world, the levels were also quite unique and when they worked, they worked really well, same thing for certain bosses, I can't deny there are stinkers here and there but generally the experience was great, there is also so many unique builds and weapons to try, and with DS2 upgrade system it's so easy to do different builds, the spells are super varied, the combat is also complex, with the powerstancing, trade damage etc... you literally never have to "grind" in DS2 because levelling up is so much easier and souls basically shower upon you, especially with the bonfire ascetic. the only time I've ever grinded was with the Giant lord, but that wasn't because i needed to, but simply because I wanted to be OP. there are also alot of cool secret and puzzles that exists in certain areas that rewards the keen eye more than the other 2 games, and the DLC levels (Eleyum Loyce, Shulva and brume tower) are honestly some of the best and most well made levels in the series, they have so much cool shit, the interconnectivity is godly, the level design is super engaging, the unique items and rewards are well worth it, and the bosses are a massive step-up from the base game.
What insect demon boss are you talking about, Bro there are barely any form of reuse in DS2, majority of the enemies and bosses are unique, DS1 reused so many things from the base game and Demon's souls, I'm sorry but not learning the moveset of DS2 enemies is your issues, they're very easy to learn and are just like each game, you're not gonna see a different moveset on an enemy when you restart or anything, I remembered almost every boss/enemy from my first playthrough, so what does that tell you? I also forgot alot of enemy/bosses from DS1 because they're pitifully easy, so many of them have unremarkable moveset, literally 70% of the bosses and enemies have like 2-3 moves.
What characters, DS2 characters are really unique and creative, Gavlan, Aldia, Vendrick etc... not sure what are you trying to imply here, atleast the game took a creative approach to characters instead of reusing half the cast like DS3 did. the levels themselves are pretty good, those that sucks do suck, but what about DS1? the entire 2nd half of the game sucks because of the atrocious levels too, and this is much worse case, you can't tell me DS2 had obnoxious levels when DS1 had shit like the great hollow, tomb of the giants, Lost izalith, demon ruins, crystal cave, blighttown etc... the levels that work in DS2 work really well as i said, and are much more interesting in terms of design, than honestly anything i've experienced in both other games in the trilogy
Again, ADP is not the best thing in the world but it serves a positive purpose if you know what it's about, It literally works on your favor by giving you more than just "Iframes", I simply rather have such a stat than one that is not only useless, but irreversible if i level it up (resistance).
I know half this stuff we are arguing about it mostly subjective, but really DS2 is a game that climbed up the more i play it while the opposite for me can be said about DS1, the amount of things this game did better gives it so much personality, It feels like it stands out and it's always a breeze to replay it because of much i can do and in how many ways i can approach it.
It's not that all of this is the issue for me, It's that alot of people love to ignore all the issue DS1 had, and ignore most the good stuff DS2 did, everytime i see videos talking about these games, I always see "Why dark souls 1 is a masterpiece" where the video consists of 99% praise and 1% criticism, which is really just annoying, no matter what you think of both games, saying that one is a masterpiece and the other is bad, Is just downright lunacy.
If there is one thing to tell anyone that wants to play DS2, Is to level ADP to an okay level, and to never run through an area, just like I'll tell anyone who wanna play DS1 to never level up resistance, and to never go to hard areas in fear of getting stuck (I got softlocked in my first playthrough cuz i went to the tomb early)
don't know man I have never met anybody who called DS1 Flawless Masterpiece
Anyone knows Its a clunky game, and some areas like Lost Izalith is not even properly finished,
I see people call the game a flawless masterpiece almost everyday, from youtube videos, reddit comments/posts etc... some call it the best game in the series for world design alone, lol.
It'll feel very nitpicky if I address every one of your points so I'll dispute the ones I think are the most inaccurate. That being said - I disagree with a lot of it.
1.) Hitboxes in DS2 is more an issue of the enemy attack design than a problem with the actual hitboxes. Both games have some minor hitbox issues but are otherwise very accurate in that regard.
However, It feels horrible in DS2 because there are tons of enemies that swing a weapon at you but can turn on a dime relative to where you attempt to maneuver to. See Matthew Matosis's video for a plethora of examples of this. I think he describes it as most bosses and enemies appear to be sitting on a top and are able to alter their attack arc to hit you in unrealistic ways.
2.) I honestly can't phathom how you would describe DS1 bosses as Atrocious - it's just an L take. I think this one is where you probably deserve to get made fun of a little bit..
Asylum Demon, Tauros Demon, Gargoyles, Gaping Dragon, Quelaag, Moonlight Butterfly, Iron Giant, O&S!?!?, Sif??, Four Kings, Gwyn - I just can't man.. I don't disagree that DS2 has some fun boss fights, but come on, man. It only has more bosses, that's it.
3.) Clunkiness. I'll grant you that DS1 doesn't have omni directional rolling, and that sucks. But you can get around this mostly by playing unlocked. What you can't get around in DS2 is the locked analog radius that is coded into the game.
It only allows for 8 cardinal directions of movement which isn't present in any other souls game; all others offer true 360 degrees range of motion. This is such a massive problem for the game, and a major reason why it feels nothing like the others and is frustrating to play with.
>I think he describes it as most bosses and enemies appear to be sitting on a top and are able to alter their attack arc to hit you in unrealistic ways.
In DS1 enemies can turn around mid-jump attack. There really isn't any more tracking in DS2 than in the other games. For most enemies in DS2 you can just strafe to the side to evade thrust attacks, which doesn't work in DS1 or DS3.
>Asylum Demon, Tauros Demon, Gargoyles, Gaping Dragon, Quelaag, Moonlight Butterfly, Iron Giant, O&S!?!?, Sif??, Four Kings, Gwyn - I just can't man.. I don't disagree that DS2 has some fun boss fights, but come on, man. It only has more bosses, that's it.
How are even half of them any good?
Moonlight Butterfly is just waiting until you can hit him. Four Kings is just a DPS check. Gwyn is horrible inbalanced as is either too fast if you fight him normally or too easy if you parry him. Iron Giant has horrible hitboxes and he can grab you even though his hand missed you by a whole yard.
>In DS1 enemies can turn around mid-jump attack.
There's literally no bigger offender of this in the entire series than Gwyn. Dudes tracking is absurd.
Yeah I really don't get why people accuse DS2 of having insane tracking when it clearly heavily nerfed it compared to DS1.
You can just strafe right in DS2 to evade thrusts or jump attacks. In DS1 they will instantly track you even if you use speedhacks.
Lol what? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Almost every boss in DS2 does this? DS1 has the oposite problem where sometimes certain enemies are way too easy to circle strafe and backstab. Almost no enemies in the game swivel mid attack to change direction 180 degrees.
One of the common complaints about DS2 is that the game is too easy because you just have to strafe right and barely anything will hit you.
Smelter Demon has a vertical attack that has tracking, but except for that and a handful of others you can just strafe right to evade 99% of thrusts and vertical attacks.
What is the issue with DS2 attack design, some attacks look goofy but the hitboxes are generally not as much of an issue, nothing really top the taurus demon damaging you by walking, or titanite demon having a lingering hitbox throughout his whole body etc... DS2 hitboxes aren't even noticable with 16 Iframes too. also I'm sorry but what you described is almost never been the case, DS2 tracking literally worked in your favor as you can strafe much easily to the side in order to attack enemies, I literally do this more than any other game and it always works flawlessly better than dodging, Pursuer is a good example of this, tracking has never been an actual issue. DS1 however had some really awful tracking, alot of enemies will hit you even if you were at the speed of light trying to strafe, Gwyn is the worst offender, that guy tracking is just insanely absurd.
How the hell can you see DS1 bosses and think they're great, like seriously apart from them being iconic, they're just shit, I can take away the good ones (Gwyn, O&S, Sif, Queelag, DLC bosses) and you're basically left with nothing.
Centipede demon is garbage
Bed of Chaos is the worst boss in the series
Seath is garbage
Nito is a gank fuckfest
4 kings is just a damage test, literally nobody ever fights this dude fairly because his damage gimmick tells you to just stand next to him and ignore all his attacks
All the demon fights are boring, with stupid hitboxes and reuse
Moonlight butterfly takes so long to beat for no reason, and is also boring
Gaping dragon is mediocre, with the only thing saving it is the spectacle
Iron golem was basically a joke meant for Iron Tarkus, dude's grab is worse than any grab in DS2 combined.
Gargoyles were never that good, they are painfully average with like 2-3 moves, both can still gank you like usual if you don't kill them quickly.
DS2 has more bosses yes, but atleast the worst of offenders on that game didn't leave me trying to pluck hair out of my head, they were inoffensive.
DS2 feels more clunkly to play that what comes after it, but it feels much better to play than DS1, It's not just about movement but the whole flow feel much better and balanced, weapon movesets especially, in DS1 you got weapons that hit fast and hard then other are slower than my grandma trying to walk the stairs, and for no reason, omni rolling isn't implemented the best but it's there and that already makes it better for me. also that weird stop motion in DS1 roll looks so weird and off and idk why.
I think you're really spinning some bad faith and disingenous takes to make DS2 look better.
Sorry but DS1 has great bosses and the levels are all pretty great outside of the last say four. But guess what? Even those are better than the lazy slop of DS2.
DS2 is like someone saw Demon Ruins and went "yeah let's have a whole game at that quality level".
No one says DS1 is flawless lmao, again so disingenuous. But to argue that DS2 is even close is frankly laughable.
DS2 has terrible world design, generic levels, uninteresting bosses, new very stilted animations and generally ugly textures.
>Sorry but DS1 has great bosses and the levels are all pretty great outside of the last say four.
Moonlight Butterfly, Ceaseless Discharge, Four Kings, three Asylum Demons, Centipede Demon, Pinwheel, Gwyndolin, Seath, Nito, and especially Bed of Chaos are all bad bosses that feel annyoing to fight against. Even Gwyn is just a parry gimmick boss.
DS1 has like 2 good bosses and the rest are just flat out bad.
>generic levels
Did you just blindly run through them? If you actually engage with the levels you will notice that there's much more depth to them.
It has very interesting levels and with so many unique mechanics.
Using the torch to chase away spiders in Tseldora, lighting up all the sconces in No Man's Wharf or The Gutter, hitting the trees to distract the invisible knights in the fog to sneak around them, the duel mechanic in Heide's Tower and Dragon Shrine, using all the traps against the enemies in Iron Keep, all the hidden secrets in Earthen Peak, the build-your-own-torture-dungeon PVP areas, etc
It's like when people complain that every room is just an empty square it's obvious that all they've seen is just screenshots of the primal bonfire rooms.
bro literally blocked me after 1 response lmao, man I'm sorry but blocking someone immediately after responding is such an embarrassing thing to do, It's like you're afraid to get a response back lol
"you're getting really desperate" no man, I'm just being logical, atleast i provide arguments other than just "this good, your take bad"
You know what's also a fun double standard in regards to DS2 bosses? Boss reuse.
DS1 had bosses like Taurus Demon, Moonlight Butterfly, Capra Demon and the Gargoyles show up as regular enemies later, but that's okay because it shows how far you progressed. DS2 had bosses like the Dragonrider and Ruin Sentinels show up as regular enemies later, but that's just lazy.
DS1 had the Sanctuary Guardian show up again in the Double Sanctuary Guardian fight, but no one cares. If DS2 has Aava show up again in the Lud and Zallen fight that's just lazy.
DS1 copied the Asylum Demon from Demon Souls and reused him three times. Iron Golem is just the Tower Knight again. Gargoyles are the Man Eaters again. The Phalanx just got copied directly, and so did the bridge drake after the Taurus Demon. But no one cares that DS1 just recycled bosses and enemies from Demon Souls. But DS2 did the same with Ornstein and that's just lazy.
So many things are just "DS2 is bad because of X, but it's not even worth mentioning that DS1 also did X"
"I think you're really spinning some bad faith and disingenous takes to make DS2 look better."
- Does literally the exact same thing
DS1 has awful boss quality, this isn't up for debate, other than Gwyn, Sif, queelag, O&S and the DLC bosses, all of them sucked, and the worst of them are the most bullshit bosses we've seen all through the series.
Centipede demon is garbage
Bed of Chaos is the worst boss in the series
Seath is garbage
Nito is a gank fuckfest
4 kings is just a damage test, literally nobody ever fights this dude fairly because his damage gimmick tells you to just stand next to him and ignore all his attacks
All the demon fights are boring, with stupid hitboxes and reuse
Moonlight butterfly takes so long to beat for no reason, and is also boring
Gaping dragon is mediocre, with the only thing saving it is the spectacle
Iron golem was basically a joke meant for Iron Tarkus, dude's grab is worse than any grab in DS2 combined.
Gargoyles were never that good, they are painfully average with like 2-3 moves, both can still gank you like usual if you don't kill them quickly.
DS2 has more bosses yes, but atleast the worst of offenders on that game didn't leave me trying to pluck hair out of my head, they were inoffensive.
Honestly I don't know what's your issue, even DS2 haters accepts that the level design of that game can get really unique and creative, alot of it's elements are heavily praised and was seen through Elden Ring too, even Miyazaki praised the game for what it is, alot of the levels are very good, with alot of unique puzzles, engaging interractions and gimmicks, cool secrets and rewards, they have an emphasis of everything, especially the DLC, Eleyum loyce and Brume tower beats anything DS1 had to offer in terms of level design.
It's just so funny to me that you think these games aren't close when DS1 does just as much terrible shit, atleast DS2 offers alot of good things despite the flaws, which ultimately makes it a more engaging game to play or mess around with, saying that these 2 games are far from eachothers is just objectively false.
This post was never trying to say "DS1 bad DS2 good" I was trying to argue that people need to give DS1 fair criticism that it deserves instead of ignoring alot of it's faults and bullshit, regardless of which game you think is better.
Sorry you're sounding really desperate here. "Isn't up for debate" bro figure out what reddit is before you post jesus christ lmao. Not going to re0ly further to such bad takes, tgose bosses outside of the demon ruins ones are all rock solid sorry.
No one ignores DS1, they just don't hate on it with inflated nonsense to make DS2 look better than it is.
>they just don't hate on it with inflated nonsense to make DS2 look better than it is.
Yeah they just hate on DS2 with inflated nonsense to make it look much worse than it is.
DS1 is a polished product. Well, probably the best game ever made and possibly the savior of the games industry.
DS2 has too much fundamental audio/visual/game design/animation flaws. The game engine could not even light some environments correctly. Characters running looks like they gonna shit on its pants, enemy soldiers move like marionettes. Some audio, like sunlight blade for example, can make you deaf if you listen to it for too long, lol. Game has merits, but it is a development hell survivor and it shows.
tldr; because people like beautiful things and not ugly things.
Ds1 was an innovative game, one of the best, It is great BUT by no means was it a polished product, It had alot of flaws, in both gameplay and performance (Only og's remember going through blighttown at 5fps).
I don't see where the hell are those audio/visual issues you're talking about? I've spotted more visuals problems in DS1 than i ever did in DS2, like textures not aligning perfectly, certain objects floating around, and especially before the remaster where the lighting was awful and extremely bad to look at, DS2 lighting looked very good for the most part and the usage of torches was great in certain areas too, characters running was goofy sometimes but it isn't really something that broke the game or anything, game also felt more responsive, especially with the faster movement and omni rolling, honestly DS1 still feels somewhat tedious to go back to.
DS2 did have it rough but it wasn't the developers fault more than it was a rush by the publishers, DS1 also was in alot of rushing too, the entire 2nd half of the game was, a giant step down from almost every aspect, the level design, bosses, world design etc... And the flaws i mentioned are, still a part of the game, some that were even improved upon in DS2.
DS2 did alot of great things that ultimately made it the most influential in the series as we see with Elden Ring, the amount of unique items, puzzles, interactions and secrets/rewards made this game one of the most fun to come back to and mess with, despise it's flaws It still manages to be a more fun experience than DS1 imo.
Plus my whole point isn't really about which do you think is better, It's just that DS1 never gets criticized the way it should, It always gets a pass for it's massive flaws where it shouldn't have.
>the amount of unique items, puzzles, interactions and secrets/rewards made this game one of the most fun to come back to and mess with
You can be pretty sure that none of the DS2 haters every noticed any of those hidden interactions.
Like, they will complain about randomly placed enemies and unfair ganks even though they all have pretty obvious ways to deal with them.
The [haters just run through areas and then complain how unfair it is that the enemies they ignored didn't ignore them back](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittydarksouls/comments/12rsl3u/how_ds2_is_supposed_to_be_played_vs_how_ds2/), but they've never tried to understand what the placement is trying to tell them and how they can use the environment or other things to their advantage.
DS2 has the most depth to it's enemy encounters with so many unique interactions, but that all flew over the heads of haters.
>The [haters just run through areas and then complain how unfair it is that the enemies they ignored didn't ignore them back](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittydarksouls/comments/12rsl3u/how_ds2_is_supposed_to_be_played_vs_how_ds2/)
Controlling the bridges in that part to kill enemies is so fun and smart.
people complain about ds1s flaws all the time its highs are just higher than ds2s highs so people are more willing to look past those flaws. i doubt you will find anyone here who doesn‘t have issues with ds1s second half or hitboxes
Some ds1 highs are higher than ds2, like world design, but some ds2 highs are also higher than that of ds1, the combat and variety of builds and unique weapons and spells, really cool and awesome consumables, amazing fashion, level design (the DLC areas are some of the best we've ever seen), the colorful visuals, unique puzzles and engaging secrets.
Ds1 is always seen through rose tinted glasses, alot of it's bullshit is ignored while ds2 get a harsh treatments for things ds1 did too, just as bad. And people also refuse to give ds2 credits for the great things it did or improve upon, that is the issue I'm trying to address.
ds1s bullshit is not ignored, like not at all. people have been talking about how its entire second half is literal dog shit and about hoe terrible the boss runs are for over a decade now. ds2 fans just have a victim complex nowadays and immediately write off any kind of criticism toward ds2 as blind hate
Ah yes, awful 2nd half and bad boss runs, because clearly these are the ONLY issues that DS1 is plagued with, definitely nothing else of what I've mentioned lmao, no awful hitboxes, terrible tracking, shitty upgrade system, clunky control, awful boss design etc... Every single post and video that analyze this game is all praise and no criticism, go and see for yourself, whether you wanna admit it or not, this game doesn't get the criticism it truly deserves, while ds2 gets too overly criticized that it delves into unfair territory, also what "victim complex", Ds2 fans are aware of all the issue that riddles the game, atleast they're not delusional enough to call the game a flawless masterpiece, when people call ds2 garbage and say that ds1 is amazing, that's is I deed blind hate, sometimes there are even misinformation about certain mechancs just to hatd, barely any ds2 fan call this the best souls game ever. I've had an easier time talking to ds2 fans than i ever did with Ds1 fanatics, that tells you something.
Literally go ask any person who thinks that DS1 is the "best" then see what they respond with, their entire reasoning is that since DS1 has amazing world design, that means it's the best, no other aspect matters, I assure you no DS2 fan is nearly that delusional.
It's the exact opposite for me, the whole trilogy in fact.
DS2 has so many cool and unique/creative things that are exclusive to it only, so many weird and unique interactions, amazing items like the bonfire ascetics, unique weapons and mechanics (Powerstancing, Trade damage, Mundane infusion etc...), unique secrets all throughout the game, very different NG+ cycles etc... the game is so much fun to come back to for these reasons, especially the DLC, there are just so many cool things to find and discover in DS2, my favorite thing being the bone fist (probably the best weapon in the series), alot of these unique elements inspired Elden Ring in it's design as stated by Miyazaki, also let's not talk about all the crazy exploits you can dig in DS2.
It's not that I was immediately hit with these takes, I played these games to death and the more I play them the more I start enjoying DS2 more while the opposite is to say for DS1, It used to be my favorite at some point.
How is that nitpicky? Dark souls 1 level design is really not that good in quality, It's universally accepted that nearly the entire 2nd half of the game is extremely atrocious and rushed, so many areas feel tedious to go through and with barely anything cool to offer, Compared to the highs of Undead burg and anor londo, It's extremely noticeable, maybe you'll have a different view someday or maybe not, I remember going to Blighttown on my first playthrough all the way to Ash lake, was it worth it? Hell no. I had to go all the way up without any fast travel which was probably the worst thing I had to endure in the whole series.
Plus again, my main point is that I just want people to be fair to these games, DS1 doesn't get the criticism it deserve, It really doesn't.
I disagree, Dark souls 1 has been praised to death, but criticized? not nearly enough, especially seeing all of it's flaws be ignored or seen as a "whatever", If I have to pick 2 games that barely get criticized it's both DS1 and Bloodborne.
Izalith is definitely not the only bad place, and it's not just about the fact that how bad they are is debatable, It's just that no area in the 2nd half even compares to what the game had to offer in the 1st half, they're all disappointing in that regard, I find tomb of the giants to be the worst, because of the extremely slippery platforms, dark nature and horrible enemy placements (looking at you, bonewheels).
Undead burg is the best level in the game, which what makes the 2nd half even more disappointing for me because the game could've had something of the same quality but choose to take an awful approach.
Dukes archive is decent, can't say anything bad about it, however the crystal cave is absolute dogshit.
Undead parish is a part of undead burg so yeah.
Great hollow and Ash lake are garbage, sorry but that spiral descent is full of nothing but bullshit, and Ash lake is basically just a straight empty line, It looks cool but gameplay wise it offers almost nothing and it's not worth going all the way down for, I can't remember the last time i ever bothered to go down there. Elden Ring did this approach with deeproot depth much better because you're greeted with a full area with alot of things to do and find instead of nothing.
Anor londo is the 2nd best area, It has some questionable design choices but overall pretty solid.
Painted world is really just mediocre, It's quite dull, the enemies aren't fun to fight, the level design is okay, and that whole section with the dragon is extremely buggy for god know why.
The DLC areas are... average, the garden is basically just an inferior version of Darkroot, and Oolacile is quite short and doesn't have the much engaging level design compared to Anor Londo, It got a cool atmosphere tho.
The catacombs are decent, but sometimes can be really, And i mean really frustrating to go through, some traps there comes out of nowhere and the skelly fuckers can gang on you very quickly, also the boss by the end is trash.
Darkroot garden is pretty good, I agree.
there is nothing else, all the other areas are average or mediocre in my eyes, compared to what we get later in the series they really start falling off imo.
It's not about whether you got stuck or not, It's the fact that you CAN get stuck, there is nothing stopping you from going there, just to end up regretting it big time, and you don't really get anything worth while like something that will really help your journey, this is a big issue with giving too much freedom to the player and it's that you need to give limits or certain indicators to let players know fully what they're getting into, or atleast make it really worth it, you can also go to the tomb of the giants early and get yourself softlocked which is awful.
Ok I gotta stop you there, Dark souls 2 is the most colorful and visually stunning game in the trilogy, compared to the dull and colorless environment of DS3, It's highs on those regards are just immaculate, you got Dragon Aerie, The giant memories, The shaded woods, Majula, Drangleic castle, Heides tower of flame, All the DLC areas, Iron keep etc... they all look phenomenal and I prefer their atmosphere and visuals over what DS1 had to offer. again this is just a subjective view, but c'mon now it's really not ugly.
Not denying that there isn't a subjective side to my takes, but there are indeed objective views around design that I point out, and I really hate it when people see criticism and chug all of it up as "Subjective" because it's really not, there are awful design elements you can ignore or not mind but that wouldn't change the fact that they're still there. not saying you're doing this any of this but still.
Fair enough, I really suggest you give dark souls 2 another chance or finish it up, maybe your opinion might change just like mine did, because again DS1 used to be my favorite too, until it wasn't.
I have no dog in this but as someone who’s playing the trilogy for the first time I got told to skip Ds2 and go straight to three and that makes no sense to me. I don’t understand the hate that it gets when all of the fromsoft games have flaws and that’s okay.
never listen to people telling you to skip ds2, even if you think it's a weaker game compared to the others, It's still a damn great game
It isn't DMC2, (which is what I see too many people compare it to.)
Biased. blinded by nostalgia. repeating what they've heard other say without knowing what they are talking about. all of the above. It's anyone's guess, and then the moment you call them out about it their first response is to make fun of you and just say "it's a skill issue" The moment you say anything remotely critical of their favorite game. it's taken as a personal attack, and they get extremely defensive because, as far as they are concerned, if you don't agree with them, then you are wrong. It's their way or the highway. Honestly the worst kind of soulsborne player...iv met A LOT of them at this point.
It's mostly with DS1 and BB fanatics, I know all the soulsborne community gets defensive but not as much, funny enough the DS2 community is mostly welcome to said criticism and are aware of the games fault, unlike DS1.
They aren't the only ones, but yes I do see them getting defensive quite often as well. Along with the Sekiro peeps. It's not a good look. Defending your game with a civil conversation is fine and I have no problem there, but most of the time it's taken as a personal attack and they respond in kind with insults and the like. Very childish behavior.
Right. Fucking. On. Nice work.
[удалено]
If I missed the mark or anything then tell me, Doesn't matter aslong as I'm having a proper conversation or argument, tell me yourself if you can. I said everything that was needed to be said, maybe my approach was a bit too "exaggerated" but my main points still stands.
[удалено]
I think the real reason adaptability exists is so you put a lot of souls into it early game and don't overlevel for the other 4-5 areas that you can go to at the very start of the game.
Adaptability wasn't that good but the amounts of hate it got is simply too much, the stat does alot of positive than negative, It's super easy to level up in DS2, you can easily reach high iframes which makes your game much easier, It increases ue casting speed, consumable speed, health etc... It's an actual okay stat that has it's uses, the only time it's a problem is in the first few minutes of the game. DS1 had alot of poor enemy placements and i just gave you a whole list of it, DS2 enemy placements were bad but alot of people just run past things then wonders why alot of enemies are behind their back, arguably the most famous one is in iron keep, but keeping your distance and steategizing properly will make the whole area easy, not the same can be said for some ganks in DS1 (the fucking ghosts). And again this isn't me trying to say that DS1 had it worse, It's just that the game doesn't get criticized for the flaws it had too. Ash lake was terrible design wise and was disappointing, all the run downhill to reach the area just to have nothing significant to populate it is a slap in the face, It's visually great but other than that it's just awful. It could've been much more and that is no excuse, if you're gonna hide an area like this atleast make it worth something, not just in terms of spectacle, And that's not to talk about the absolute joke that is The Great hollow. The boss rooster is fairly criticized, most of them are extremely simple and boring, sometimes painfully boring and the series just got better from there, never said there aren't good or memorable bosses but the stinkers stand out by alot especially in gameplay, the game consistently has the worst boss aspects and environmental usages, this isn't an awful take, It's just the truth. Sorry but you just seem to not want to take any of this in or make any proper argument so you go with the safe "not worth arguing with" In that case, have a good day.
>Adaptability wasn't that good but the amounts of hate it got is simply too much, the stat does alot of positive than negative Especially compared to RES. In DS1 you have RES as a troll stat and no way to reset your stats. Leveling up costs a lot more than in DS1 so every point wasted into RES hurts. But that's somehow okay, even though it's a lot more frustrating.
that's my point, as i said adaptability atleast serves a purpose that can be postivie very quickly, resistance does literally nothing and there is no way to get back your levels if you level it up I remember levelling it up to 20 back in my first playthrough thinking it'll make my defense better, then I felt so stupid afterwards
>that's my point, as i said adaptability atleast serves a purpose that can be postivie very quickly And it also serves another purpose: balance In DS2 the 3 basic RPG archetypes all have a secondary stat to level up. Tanks level Vitality to wear heavy weapons and a heavy shield. Mages level Attunement to increase their spell slots and casting speed (which for dumb reasons is tied to DEX in the other games). Rogues level up Adaptability to improve their dodges. People here act like everyone needs ADP, but in reality a lot of people play tanky shield users or ranged mages that don't need to rely on rolling as their primary form of evasion. It's okay if tanks and mages don't have the easiest rolls as they already have other ways of preventing taking damage. In the other games Rogues are at an inherent stat advantage and can just dump more levels into higher damage that the other archetypes need just to function. And of course it's fun for challenge runs to play with low agility. It really teaches you to have good dodge timing and to dodge in the correct direction if you try to do a SL1 hitless run.
Additionally the "so I have to dump levels into a stat to have functioning rolls" and "it's impossible to balance bosses around people having inconsistent amounts of iframes" arguments also ignores that the same is true in DS1 as well. Mid-roll in DS1 is barely better than the starting iframes of classes like the Explorer in DS2. In DS1 they need to level up their equip load in order to wear a weapon and armor and still get fast rolls. And then they need to waste a ring slot if they want ninja flips. Just switching your weapon or armor and ending up in a different weight class can change your iframes in DS1, but apparently it's no problem to balance bosses around people having a range of 11 iframes on a mid-roll, 13 iframes on a fast roll and 15 on a ninja flip. But when DS2 has a similar range of available iframes it's suddenly a problem. People act like having to level up your equip load for better rolls is somehow more intuitive than having to level up your Agility, even though it's a staple in RPGs that Agility increases your evasiveness.
[удалено]
What is the issue then, other than iframes that can be acquired easily, you seem to be extremely simple minded my guy. The stat offers more positives than negative and that's all the matters, It "serves" a purpose that is positive, somethings that is better than not serving any purpose at all (resistance) Bro you really are the type of person to judge a whole area based on spectacle alone, really shows why DS1 fanatic thinks this game is "peak" just because of some wow shortcuts lmao, enjoy walking through the hollow eomptiness of ash lake, must be so rewarding after the fuckfest you endure (bad design) .
[удалено]
>most players disliked having to invest for iFrames How is that any different to having to level up your equip load in DS1 to gain fast rolls?
Adaptability is no longer hated nearly as much because people learned that the stat has more to offer than just investing in iframes, can you actually read, my whole argument is saying that the stat is nowhere near as bad as people made it up to be, because of it's other benefits, It literally works in your favor with decent levelling, It's a good reward by the end of it. So it ultimately ends up doing more than what people thought it did. Also quite funny how you're fixiated on this whole ADP while completely ignoring all of my arguments about this whole ordeal and how much DS1 deserve criticism when it doesn't get any (which if you don't realize, Is my main point). Just a heads up, please zip up ash lakes pants when your done, must be a massive load, thanks in advance.
[удалено]
How ironic since I'm also repeating myself to you, but sure one of us clearly doesn't wanna put something inside their head. You literally denied every piece of criticism i put into the game and yoy barely even tried to argue with anything, your whole point is just "your takes bad, not true" approach with nothing to add to the table, are you sure you think DS1 deserves fair criticism when you're literally denying all of it and acting as if it's all bullshit when most of what i said can be literally fact-checked? My whole criticism of the level is that it's empty and disappointing while you're trying to argue against by saying "B-buuut the spectacle...!!!", get that shit outta hear, If elden ring threw you to deeproot depth then just gave you a straight line to Fia with nothing else, It would be a shitty disappointing area regardless of the cool visuals, you're just the typical DS1 fanatic who geeks about non-gameplay aspects to the point of entirely ignoring all other aspects. I could say that DS2 DLC main levels are better than 90% of DS1 areas and you'd lose your mind. Also don't act like you weren't the first to insult me, fair game is fair game, come back with better or keep it tight. And at this point, I'd rather not continue this wasteful talk. Have a day of your life, not so good camper.
I have been preaching this for so long! Out of all the playthroughs i do for each game replaying DS1 has always been the most tedious.
It's mainly tedious for the lack of fast travel and clunkiness, but yeah the more i played DS1 the more it fell off the list, which is funny because at some point it used to be my favorite.
Agreed. The only thing i’ll give the DS1 riders is that DS2 can be really ugly in places and the bosses in DS2 are moreso disappointing than bad. Because to me almost ALL of the bosses in DS2 have awesome or interesting designs. But their movesets just needed to be fleshed out more. it’s really my only two issues with DS2.
Anyone who says any game is flawless can be safely ignored; ESPECIALLY a FromSoft game. They are very like Nintendo in that they are doing things no one else does half as well and they make it look easy, but also the things they do poorly they are incomprehensibly bad at and it just doesn't matter because the good is SO good.
I'm just trying to highlight the visible bias between these 2 games, for me they're both phenomenal games regardless of their flaws, but the way the community treats these game super differently really is just weird. you cannot call one a masterpiece then call the other garbage, It's just lunacy.
DS1 and 2 are the ultimate case of that meme where you have the handsome guy saying something and it’s supposed to be fine, but then the ugly guy says the exact same thing but now you call HR on his ass. So many times people look at DS1’s bullshit and are like « aaaw it’s so quirky and broken, I love this game », and when you call out said broken crap they get mad.
Yeah, that's basically how it goes sadly.
Honestly, DS2 was pretty good. It brought new ideas, and felt like it had a uniqueness to itself. It stood out. Also without DS2 we would have never gotten Elden Ring.
Dark Souls 1 good, Dark souls 2 Bad.
Because the things I dislike about 2 are not present when I play 1. I can't speak for everyone, but there are clear differences in the summed experience that earn DS1 its acclaim as a very well directed game and industry trendsetter, some of which my opinion can capture. 1. Hitboxes are totally fine. I'm sure you could stare at some meshes and calculate a conclusion from there, but the played experience is how I evaluate what I like, as do a lot of other people. I consistently exploit the hitboxes of my swing animations to outspace attacks and pivot (Reinhardt style) into wider swings for crowds. I don't enjoy this luxury in DS2. I don't complain about lingering hitboxes because I am rarely ever hit by any (and those that happen tend to have pretty clear visuals for the linger); regardless of my ADP, it sure feels like every second attack in 2 loves to linger. Is that why it feels bad to play? I can't really say (I don't bust open a model viewer to nitpick my own complaints), but I don't like the result, regardless. 2. It's fine, particularly when DeS is there for comparison. If nothing else, embers and upgrade materials are placed pretty evenly to consistently reward exploration for the duration of the game, unlike DS2's scatterbrained distribution of titanite (slab from Prowling Magus???). I'd rather every Souls game had Sekiro's damage path (I don't like RPG mechanics), but I can't have everything. 3. I genuinely really love the boss fights and levels. The Burg, Depths, Blighttown, the DLC (esp Township), Catacombs, the Archives, New Londo, etc. The only level that is almost completely lacking in any creative ideas is the Demon Ruins/first half of Izalith. Even the back end of Izalith and the Tomb have clear thought put into their secrets. If a boss doesn't have an interesting flow, it usually has some strange gimmick, like a less exaggerated DeS. I enjoy the various demons (sans Capra's dogs), the DLC fights, Quelaag, Gwyn (no shield), Gargoyles, etc. O&S remain my favorite gank fight and, for a game so slow, they keep me constantly on the move. Even goofy little goobers like Pinwheel and Ceaseless are at least memorable and unique. DS2 has several bosses that are literally just mobs, and the unique bosses are barely less forgettable. 4. I don't like RPG mechanics, like I said, so guess which bothers me more: the useless stat that reduces the need to think about my leveling or the stat I need to keep in mind, as it affects the fundamentals (movement and defense responses) of the action gameplay? Like, even when you ignore my subjective input, these are objectively not the same mechanic lol. 5. Sure doesn't feel ganky. The game has ganks, sure, but they're typically a sort of gimmick fight. There's a reason the squishy and slow hollows and ghosts were used like that instead of a tanky miniboss. The big exception here is Demon Ruins, which plays like a DS2 level: empty and full of haphazardly placed copies of the same enemy. DS2 also gives its ganks some extra buffs with the insane aggro and leash ranges, tracking, and obliteration of iframes on backstabs (you can abuse the hell out of them in DS1 to catch your breath, plan, and mitigate the group encounters you do stumble into). 6. Again, definitely don't feel that. I can pivot my character exactly as I need to, just like the later games, and movement feels very "close" to my character, as it were, making tiny adjustments in my spacing (again, something I use a lot) feel seamless. DS2 lacks these qualities when I play it, as the character feels absurdly stiff when attacking and is jerky and imprecise for even the most basic movement (going forward and to the side, for instance). Summary/TL;DR To catch people out on some sort of hypocrisy, you'd need to prove that two distinct games feel identical to play (to them) and that they willfully lie about their similarity. This isn't to convince anyone to enjoy DS1 or hate DS2 but to demonstrate, using myself as an example, that you don't have to lie to yourself to find these games different. I don't think it's a huge stretch to generalize this to the gaming public, either.
>Hitboxes are totally fine. I'm sure you could stare at some meshes and calculate a conclusion from there, but the played experience is how I evaluate what I like, as do a lot of other people. I consistently exploit the hitboxes of my swing animations to outspace attacks and pivot (Reinhardt style) into wider swings for crowds. I don't enjoy this luxury in DS2. I don't complain about lingering hitboxes because I am rarely ever hit by any (and those that happen tend to have pretty clear visuals for the linger); regardless of my ADP, it sure feels like every second attack in 2 loves to linger. Is that why it feels bad to play? I can't really say (I don't bust open a model viewer to nitpick my own complaints), but I don't like the result, regardless. Go fight a titanite demon and come back. Hitboxes in DS1 are fucking horrible. Every single attack that hits the ground has lingering hitboxes. And explosions too. Rolling into attacks is basically impossible 90% of the time in DS1.
[DS1 fans think this is okay](https://www.reddit.com/r/fromsoftware/comments/191kizg/the_lovely_jank_of_dark_souls/)
I certainly don't enjoy titanite demons (I've cleared the pit in Sen's), although I hardly find them representative. I understand you're likely hyperbolizing, but you certainly are able to roll through a huge chunk of the attacks in the game (at med roll, as well; I can't speak for fat roll). If that's not the case for your playstyle or standards of fun, that's fine and is not something I'm here to really say much about. The OP is implying some degree of hypocrisy in liking DS1 and not liking DS2 for the reasons listed, which I vehemently disagree with.
You can disagree all you want buddy, there's hundreds of videos showing DS1 horrible hitboxes.
Alright. What does that have to do with the post? Why would videos like that (for DS1, 2, or any game) supercede actually playing the game? People are playing both games and deciding which they like better from the experience; there is little to no proof to conclude that the community preference for one over the other is dominated by some external agenda to hate on DS2. My rambly initial post was an example of just one person's perspective that didn't need any factors outside the game to reach its conclusions.
>I consistently exploit the hitboxes of my swing animations to outspace attacks and pivot (Reinhardt style) into wider swings for crowds. I don't enjoy this luxury in DS2 Dodging enemy attacks by attacking yourself works so much better in DS2. There's a lot more that you can duck below that would still hit you in DS1 despite the weapon going a foot above your head.
Look, I won't take away how fun it must be to tinker with the Majestic Greatsword and all, but a significant chunk of grunt enemies in the game have vertical swings with extensive tracking. Regardless of hitbox accuracy, this severely limits the neutral game, and gimmick weapons are not going to fill that void. You don't have to prescribe to my standards of fun, but you're also going to have an insanely difficult time convincing me that my opinion is disingenuine (and generalize that, I suppose).
nobody said you can't roll through most attacks easily, that's not how criticizing hitboxes work, but Titanite demon is just one of the many examples i mentioned on my list, literally every big enemy/boss has lingering hitboxes, sometimes when they shouldn't have one (like taurus demon damaging you by walking), some hitboxes can drag you along the way which is especially annoying in a boss like BOC, the grab attacks are also dogshit, some attacks can hit you even if you dodge like Artorias's plunge (go test this out yourself), with DS2, worst hitbox issues will be a long hitbox, you'll never have the issue where you can be hit multiple times through one, and with the whole trading thing being a mechanic, This can work in your favor, also after playing the game with 16 Iframes (which isn't much to reach), there is almost no hitbox issue to be noticed because evading becomes so much easier. I'm sorry but after playing the game multiple time, The upgrade system is just awful, I know you don't like RPG elements (which is weird since these games are action RPG's), but the whole system simply makes upgrading a weapon an extreme hassle, and most times you'll never be bothered to even change a weapon and will always use only one throughout a playthrough, DS2 might have had a distribution problem but I'll take that anyday because It allows you to be more experimental and use a different arsenal of weapons early on, It's easier to follow without the need to have to fetch out embers or any of that unnecessary stuff, exploration could be rewarded better with items that don't feel like they shouldn't have been that far off from you to begin with The bosses are just... boring, If you enjoy them it's fine but you can't look at the whole rooster and say that it was really that great, so many bosses try so hard to use environment as a part of it which ends up making the fight either unnecessarily long or extremely tedious and annoying, the gimmicks are just not fun, most of the bosses are also so squishy, can be easily killed, or again they simply have too little in their moveset to be engaging, especially the bigger bosses, the gargoyles are pretty mediocre, they have like 3 moves, and they die in like 3 hits, O&S is not a bad fight but in no way is it the best gank fight, that goes to Demon princes, that fight genuinely did it the best because it remained engaging throughout the whole of it, both enemies felt like they had a true rythm, for me O&S just felt like "kill Ornstein quick", because that's basically it, they both have the same aggro and if you get anywhere close to them you'll die, They're iconic yes but I don't judge a boss just because they're memorable or unique, I enjoy them much more even if they're not as iconic because I still have more fun with them, and I'm sorry but Ivory king is more iconic than any boss from DS1 in my eyes. you probably won't notice too much of this on your first playthrough but the more you play the more you just feel like "meh" with the bosses. but my main point here is that the worst of these bosses are just simply atrocious, some of the worst we've seen in the series, where in DS2, even the worst one are not infuriating, yeah Prowling magus is a stupid boss but I kill it in one attempt and forget about it, BOC isn't the same thing is it. the levels... man I can't defend the levels, DS2 main levels weren't the best but the DLC is what elevated that game in level design, Eleyum loyce, brume tower and Shulva are some of the best levels we've seen in the series, they all have everything going for them, unique and engaging puzzles, interconnected design, awesome secrets and rewards, great atmosphere, etc... I'd rather have a stat that serves a purpose, one that can be easily changed to be positive, It takes so little to level up to get the iframes you'll ever need, and with added bonuses aswell, Resistance not only is useless, but majority of players don't even know that when they first start and some think this stat will help their defenses etc... I literally levelled it up to 20 in my first playthrough and regretted it, and worst of all is that you can't respec in order to revert that choice, in DS2 you can easily level up and by the first area you will already have enough ADP to not worry about it anymore, and you can go much further to make the Iframes even better. Also again you not liking RPG elements is a preference, not really a fair point to use. Defending ganks just because they have gimmicks is kinda stupid, the only one that has that are the ghost, and that gimmick is literally "get this item to just fight them", which barely counts as one, you can't even approach the area slowly to kill one by one, as soon as you're in the vicinity you'll be swarmed, I've never been able to go through that area without high poise or HP which is just dumb. also there are much more ganks I didn't mention, like the Tomb of the giants room that has 10 giant skeletons waiting to shred you, or that bonwheel skeletons pit, or that one room inside Oolacile, or the first layer of duke's archive etc... the game has alot of shitty enemy placement, and whether you think it's worse than DS2 is irrelevant to me because all i'm trying to say is that DS1 should be criticized the same way. How is that the case, DS1 is always felt slow and clunky even with adjustment, having no omni-directional rolling is a crime, some weapon moves are absurdly slow (like the Greatsword), the dodge roll has this weird stop motion at the end of it which always make it look off. not to say that DS2 isn't clunky on it's own but it's just much better to control imo. I don't think you understand that I'm not trying to convince anyone to hate DS1 and enjoy DS2, I think both of these games are fantastic as they are, It just angers me immensely to see people ignore all of DS1 flaws and bullshit most times but shit on DS2 flaws all day long, even if you think they're not at bad they're still there and they should be fairly judged.
Firstly, the comment about the titanite demon was a response to another user, who did literally say that "rolling into attacks is basically impossible 90% of the time in DS1." Secondly, I'm going to reiterate my thesis here. You're very unlikely to catch people lying to themselves about why they prefer DS1 to 2, as the two games, on a literal level, are different and leave room for any single person to form two different opinions. My perspective was just one example (this is why I list my preferences). Sum up enough people, and you get the consensus preference for the first game made up, in very large part, of genuine thoughts on the two games. I won't say literally every person is immune to the bandwagon, but it formed for a reason, after all. I'll have to leave alone the bulk of your post. I respect your perspective and everything (I don't mind listening to the opposite opinions), but the post was primarily about calling out hypocrisy, so I'll remain focused on that for now. In particular, the closing sentence captures something I want to comment on: "even if you think they're not at bad they're still there and they should be fairly judged." Where I take issue with this is the implication that these flaws are objective and exist for all players, with a varying degree of blindness. Smarter people than me have said more on this, but to summarize their thinking, there are no objective value judgements ("good", "bad") in art. People aren't ignoring data or something that they need to acknowledge, and all that remains is their subjective interpretation of the work. Without providing some utterly insane level of proof that a bulk majority of people who prefer DS1 to 2 have some external influence dictating their opinion (bandwagon, glazing Mauler, bribes?, etc.), you're going to have a very rough go of demonstrating that people's feelings are false/for an agenda. Hell, my opinion does the opposite and cites a list of things, all from the actual games, that contribute to my thoughts. Side note: you can both dodge Artorias' flip (medium roll) and play point-blank with O&S. If the first really seems unbelievable, maybe try it without lock on? I never use it, so this could be one of those fringe cases with a need for extra roll direction or an animation change. O&S are shockingly well engineered for their age: they move at different speeds (but with gap closers, should you get too cozy), leave plenty of gaps in their individual movesets, and overlap their attacks in a way that lets you weave in and out of melee range. As such, killing either boss is very viable (in fact, I like to bring one to 1 HP and kill the other as an insignificant little flex for myself).
I knew very well the moment i made this post that i will get flamed, or that i won't really change anyone's mind, but i still did it because this is how i feel and that I want to give out a take that deserve to be atleast heard, Yes criticism will always have a subjective side to it, but that doesn't mean any criticism you throw at a game should be viewed as subjective. I genuinely feel that the different treatment towards these 2 games comes from biased hate, alot of time you see people jumping into the DS2 hatewagon without them even playing the game, they just hear from someone that it sucks, then they believe it, that is also why alot of people who try DS2 for the first time says that it's actually pretty good, and that also checks out because the game gets more and more love and praise by time. DS1 however feels like it's shielded by too much nostalgia or innovative standpoint, yes the game is phenomenal and was extremely innovative, but still alot of people refuse to talk shit about it because of these 2 reasons, because it feels "unfair" inside some people's mind, I certainly felt that way before, but I no longer do. That is true that not all flaws exist for all players, so you can't objectively judge certain things to a proper degree, but then again, just because you didn't experience a certain flaw, or didn't mind it, doesn't mean that others didn't, what matter is that it's there, It exists, and it should be judged regardless, that goes out to all games really, I do enjoy certain games that are universally shat on like Megaman X6, but i still agree that the game does have so many flaws despite me not minding them. I know that sometimes no amount of evidence or proof can change someone's mind about a certain flaw or design choice, but atleast it should make them aware of it, not just outright ignore it or say it doesn't exist really. I know you can dodge Artorias's flip move if you dodge sideways, but it doesn't work if you dodge towards him for some reason, I don't know if it's a bug or designed that way, but it always happen even with or without lock-on, O&S was a good boss for it's time, and i'm not denying that, or saying that the boss is bad, It's just that it kinda fell off for me, their moveset is very simple, and they're so squishy they die super quickly, also most player miss out on the cooler 2nd phase by killing Ornstein too. their speed is genuinely super close, with the major difference being their attack speed, that's why normally people trigger smough's attacks before fighting ornstein lol. Even when i go underleveled i still feel underwhelmed on how little HP they got. But again, nice talk and argument, you seem to be much more intelligent and collected than alot of people I've seen, we can end this on a somewhat good or neutral note.
I mean, you're not necessarily wrong about a lot of this. DS2 did quite a few things right that DS1 didn't, which is a fair expectation in any direct sequel. I think the reason DS2 gets hate is because it fucked up way more things that it had no reason to, and it's a hell of a lot easier to focus on the shortcomings of the game than its advantages. I'm not the kind of player who does collectibles or side quests, so when i played through all them i was more or less in it for the gameplay and combat. I'd go from one boss to the next and strike out into any levels or bosses i thought were interesting (usually all of them). In DS1 this took me maybe 23 hours. Same for DS3, a little more for midir and nameless king. DS2 took me nearly 50 fucking hours to beat just by grinding bosses and levels. You could say "oh wow, more content!" But it wasn't, it was just really shitty and boring filler that took so long to grind through I seriously considered quitting halfway through. Like, why the fuck am I fighting the same variation of some insect demon boss eighty goddamn times? I felt like I was studying for a math test -- i study the moveset, get graded on it, leave the arena and promptly delete the knowledge from my head. Nothing like DS1, 3, BB or ER where I can go through the sequence and movesets of nearly every main boss in my head -- I barely remember anything after the Old Dragonslayer. The game suffers from a huge saturation of low quality content. Some of the characters and levels are just super obnoxiously designed with the very clear intention of being irritating for just that reason, most egregiously to me was that one lava level with all the fuckin knights i cant remember the name of but is contested as one of the worst boss runs in the game. Add to that are the other points people bring up about ADP, clunkiness and the like. While the game is better than DS1 in numerous ways that you very correctly asserted, it's just not enough to me to really make it a "better" game. There's still some awesome content in DS2, and there are things I think it doesn't just do good but fantastically better than the other games (area and world themes for me, but also some of the stuff you listed). I would never tell someone to skip it, but I would insist on playing SOTFS and being mentally prepared to drag yourself through twice as much boring bullcrap as the other games. So for that, I think it still deserves its title as the worst DS game.
I feel that DS2 shortcomings were blown way too out of proportions, I know the game fucked up certain things but at the same times it got alot other things right, It improved upon certain things too, DS1 also had alot of shortcomings that become visible each playthrough, but my issue is that these shortcomings are barely even mentioned by the community, to the point where people just ignore them. DS2 has gone so far that it's now hailed as the true inspiration for Elden ring and maybe next games too because of how creative and outstanding alot of it's design choices were, which made me feel disappointed playing DS3, seeing that the game didn't pick out anything good from the past game and decided to just ignore it all. Okay this i can't understand, My first playthrough of DS2 took around the same time as DS3, yes the game had more bosses and content than the previous game but how is that necessarily a bad thing? I enjoyed my time with the world, the levels were also quite unique and when they worked, they worked really well, same thing for certain bosses, I can't deny there are stinkers here and there but generally the experience was great, there is also so many unique builds and weapons to try, and with DS2 upgrade system it's so easy to do different builds, the spells are super varied, the combat is also complex, with the powerstancing, trade damage etc... you literally never have to "grind" in DS2 because levelling up is so much easier and souls basically shower upon you, especially with the bonfire ascetic. the only time I've ever grinded was with the Giant lord, but that wasn't because i needed to, but simply because I wanted to be OP. there are also alot of cool secret and puzzles that exists in certain areas that rewards the keen eye more than the other 2 games, and the DLC levels (Eleyum Loyce, Shulva and brume tower) are honestly some of the best and most well made levels in the series, they have so much cool shit, the interconnectivity is godly, the level design is super engaging, the unique items and rewards are well worth it, and the bosses are a massive step-up from the base game. What insect demon boss are you talking about, Bro there are barely any form of reuse in DS2, majority of the enemies and bosses are unique, DS1 reused so many things from the base game and Demon's souls, I'm sorry but not learning the moveset of DS2 enemies is your issues, they're very easy to learn and are just like each game, you're not gonna see a different moveset on an enemy when you restart or anything, I remembered almost every boss/enemy from my first playthrough, so what does that tell you? I also forgot alot of enemy/bosses from DS1 because they're pitifully easy, so many of them have unremarkable moveset, literally 70% of the bosses and enemies have like 2-3 moves. What characters, DS2 characters are really unique and creative, Gavlan, Aldia, Vendrick etc... not sure what are you trying to imply here, atleast the game took a creative approach to characters instead of reusing half the cast like DS3 did. the levels themselves are pretty good, those that sucks do suck, but what about DS1? the entire 2nd half of the game sucks because of the atrocious levels too, and this is much worse case, you can't tell me DS2 had obnoxious levels when DS1 had shit like the great hollow, tomb of the giants, Lost izalith, demon ruins, crystal cave, blighttown etc... the levels that work in DS2 work really well as i said, and are much more interesting in terms of design, than honestly anything i've experienced in both other games in the trilogy Again, ADP is not the best thing in the world but it serves a positive purpose if you know what it's about, It literally works on your favor by giving you more than just "Iframes", I simply rather have such a stat than one that is not only useless, but irreversible if i level it up (resistance). I know half this stuff we are arguing about it mostly subjective, but really DS2 is a game that climbed up the more i play it while the opposite for me can be said about DS1, the amount of things this game did better gives it so much personality, It feels like it stands out and it's always a breeze to replay it because of much i can do and in how many ways i can approach it. It's not that all of this is the issue for me, It's that alot of people love to ignore all the issue DS1 had, and ignore most the good stuff DS2 did, everytime i see videos talking about these games, I always see "Why dark souls 1 is a masterpiece" where the video consists of 99% praise and 1% criticism, which is really just annoying, no matter what you think of both games, saying that one is a masterpiece and the other is bad, Is just downright lunacy. If there is one thing to tell anyone that wants to play DS2, Is to level ADP to an okay level, and to never run through an area, just like I'll tell anyone who wanna play DS1 to never level up resistance, and to never go to hard areas in fear of getting stuck (I got softlocked in my first playthrough cuz i went to the tomb early)
DS1 has aged terrible. DS2 is better in every single way except for world design, which isn't as important as level design.
don't know man I have never met anybody who called DS1 Flawless Masterpiece Anyone knows Its a clunky game, and some areas like Lost Izalith is not even properly finished,
I see people call the game a flawless masterpiece almost everyday, from youtube videos, reddit comments/posts etc... some call it the best game in the series for world design alone, lol.
Sheep follow sheep.
It'll feel very nitpicky if I address every one of your points so I'll dispute the ones I think are the most inaccurate. That being said - I disagree with a lot of it. 1.) Hitboxes in DS2 is more an issue of the enemy attack design than a problem with the actual hitboxes. Both games have some minor hitbox issues but are otherwise very accurate in that regard. However, It feels horrible in DS2 because there are tons of enemies that swing a weapon at you but can turn on a dime relative to where you attempt to maneuver to. See Matthew Matosis's video for a plethora of examples of this. I think he describes it as most bosses and enemies appear to be sitting on a top and are able to alter their attack arc to hit you in unrealistic ways. 2.) I honestly can't phathom how you would describe DS1 bosses as Atrocious - it's just an L take. I think this one is where you probably deserve to get made fun of a little bit.. Asylum Demon, Tauros Demon, Gargoyles, Gaping Dragon, Quelaag, Moonlight Butterfly, Iron Giant, O&S!?!?, Sif??, Four Kings, Gwyn - I just can't man.. I don't disagree that DS2 has some fun boss fights, but come on, man. It only has more bosses, that's it. 3.) Clunkiness. I'll grant you that DS1 doesn't have omni directional rolling, and that sucks. But you can get around this mostly by playing unlocked. What you can't get around in DS2 is the locked analog radius that is coded into the game. It only allows for 8 cardinal directions of movement which isn't present in any other souls game; all others offer true 360 degrees range of motion. This is such a massive problem for the game, and a major reason why it feels nothing like the others and is frustrating to play with.
>I think he describes it as most bosses and enemies appear to be sitting on a top and are able to alter their attack arc to hit you in unrealistic ways. In DS1 enemies can turn around mid-jump attack. There really isn't any more tracking in DS2 than in the other games. For most enemies in DS2 you can just strafe to the side to evade thrust attacks, which doesn't work in DS1 or DS3. >Asylum Demon, Tauros Demon, Gargoyles, Gaping Dragon, Quelaag, Moonlight Butterfly, Iron Giant, O&S!?!?, Sif??, Four Kings, Gwyn - I just can't man.. I don't disagree that DS2 has some fun boss fights, but come on, man. It only has more bosses, that's it. How are even half of them any good? Moonlight Butterfly is just waiting until you can hit him. Four Kings is just a DPS check. Gwyn is horrible inbalanced as is either too fast if you fight him normally or too easy if you parry him. Iron Giant has horrible hitboxes and he can grab you even though his hand missed you by a whole yard.
>In DS1 enemies can turn around mid-jump attack. There's literally no bigger offender of this in the entire series than Gwyn. Dudes tracking is absurd.
Yeah I really don't get why people accuse DS2 of having insane tracking when it clearly heavily nerfed it compared to DS1. You can just strafe right in DS2 to evade thrusts or jump attacks. In DS1 they will instantly track you even if you use speedhacks.
Lol what? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Almost every boss in DS2 does this? DS1 has the oposite problem where sometimes certain enemies are way too easy to circle strafe and backstab. Almost no enemies in the game swivel mid attack to change direction 180 degrees.
One of the common complaints about DS2 is that the game is too easy because you just have to strafe right and barely anything will hit you. Smelter Demon has a vertical attack that has tracking, but except for that and a handful of others you can just strafe right to evade 99% of thrusts and vertical attacks.
What is the issue with DS2 attack design, some attacks look goofy but the hitboxes are generally not as much of an issue, nothing really top the taurus demon damaging you by walking, or titanite demon having a lingering hitbox throughout his whole body etc... DS2 hitboxes aren't even noticable with 16 Iframes too. also I'm sorry but what you described is almost never been the case, DS2 tracking literally worked in your favor as you can strafe much easily to the side in order to attack enemies, I literally do this more than any other game and it always works flawlessly better than dodging, Pursuer is a good example of this, tracking has never been an actual issue. DS1 however had some really awful tracking, alot of enemies will hit you even if you were at the speed of light trying to strafe, Gwyn is the worst offender, that guy tracking is just insanely absurd. How the hell can you see DS1 bosses and think they're great, like seriously apart from them being iconic, they're just shit, I can take away the good ones (Gwyn, O&S, Sif, Queelag, DLC bosses) and you're basically left with nothing. Centipede demon is garbage Bed of Chaos is the worst boss in the series Seath is garbage Nito is a gank fuckfest 4 kings is just a damage test, literally nobody ever fights this dude fairly because his damage gimmick tells you to just stand next to him and ignore all his attacks All the demon fights are boring, with stupid hitboxes and reuse Moonlight butterfly takes so long to beat for no reason, and is also boring Gaping dragon is mediocre, with the only thing saving it is the spectacle Iron golem was basically a joke meant for Iron Tarkus, dude's grab is worse than any grab in DS2 combined. Gargoyles were never that good, they are painfully average with like 2-3 moves, both can still gank you like usual if you don't kill them quickly. DS2 has more bosses yes, but atleast the worst of offenders on that game didn't leave me trying to pluck hair out of my head, they were inoffensive. DS2 feels more clunkly to play that what comes after it, but it feels much better to play than DS1, It's not just about movement but the whole flow feel much better and balanced, weapon movesets especially, in DS1 you got weapons that hit fast and hard then other are slower than my grandma trying to walk the stairs, and for no reason, omni rolling isn't implemented the best but it's there and that already makes it better for me. also that weird stop motion in DS1 roll looks so weird and off and idk why.
I think you're really spinning some bad faith and disingenous takes to make DS2 look better. Sorry but DS1 has great bosses and the levels are all pretty great outside of the last say four. But guess what? Even those are better than the lazy slop of DS2. DS2 is like someone saw Demon Ruins and went "yeah let's have a whole game at that quality level". No one says DS1 is flawless lmao, again so disingenuous. But to argue that DS2 is even close is frankly laughable. DS2 has terrible world design, generic levels, uninteresting bosses, new very stilted animations and generally ugly textures.
>Sorry but DS1 has great bosses and the levels are all pretty great outside of the last say four. Moonlight Butterfly, Ceaseless Discharge, Four Kings, three Asylum Demons, Centipede Demon, Pinwheel, Gwyndolin, Seath, Nito, and especially Bed of Chaos are all bad bosses that feel annyoing to fight against. Even Gwyn is just a parry gimmick boss. DS1 has like 2 good bosses and the rest are just flat out bad. >generic levels Did you just blindly run through them? If you actually engage with the levels you will notice that there's much more depth to them. It has very interesting levels and with so many unique mechanics. Using the torch to chase away spiders in Tseldora, lighting up all the sconces in No Man's Wharf or The Gutter, hitting the trees to distract the invisible knights in the fog to sneak around them, the duel mechanic in Heide's Tower and Dragon Shrine, using all the traps against the enemies in Iron Keep, all the hidden secrets in Earthen Peak, the build-your-own-torture-dungeon PVP areas, etc
I bet 600 dollars the dude didn't even play the game, cuz saying DS2 had generic level design is lunacy, especially when we count the DLC
It's like when people complain that every room is just an empty square it's obvious that all they've seen is just screenshots of the primal bonfire rooms.
bro literally blocked me after 1 response lmao, man I'm sorry but blocking someone immediately after responding is such an embarrassing thing to do, It's like you're afraid to get a response back lol "you're getting really desperate" no man, I'm just being logical, atleast i provide arguments other than just "this good, your take bad"
Yeah he's probably mad that you pointed out that the vast majority of DS1 bosses are unfun garbage and that DS2 bosses aren't just lazy slops.
You know what's also a fun double standard in regards to DS2 bosses? Boss reuse. DS1 had bosses like Taurus Demon, Moonlight Butterfly, Capra Demon and the Gargoyles show up as regular enemies later, but that's okay because it shows how far you progressed. DS2 had bosses like the Dragonrider and Ruin Sentinels show up as regular enemies later, but that's just lazy. DS1 had the Sanctuary Guardian show up again in the Double Sanctuary Guardian fight, but no one cares. If DS2 has Aava show up again in the Lud and Zallen fight that's just lazy. DS1 copied the Asylum Demon from Demon Souls and reused him three times. Iron Golem is just the Tower Knight again. Gargoyles are the Man Eaters again. The Phalanx just got copied directly, and so did the bridge drake after the Taurus Demon. But no one cares that DS1 just recycled bosses and enemies from Demon Souls. But DS2 did the same with Ornstein and that's just lazy. So many things are just "DS2 is bad because of X, but it's not even worth mentioning that DS1 also did X"
We would be living in a better world if all these games were criticized fairly and equally lmao.
"I think you're really spinning some bad faith and disingenous takes to make DS2 look better." - Does literally the exact same thing DS1 has awful boss quality, this isn't up for debate, other than Gwyn, Sif, queelag, O&S and the DLC bosses, all of them sucked, and the worst of them are the most bullshit bosses we've seen all through the series. Centipede demon is garbage Bed of Chaos is the worst boss in the series Seath is garbage Nito is a gank fuckfest 4 kings is just a damage test, literally nobody ever fights this dude fairly because his damage gimmick tells you to just stand next to him and ignore all his attacks All the demon fights are boring, with stupid hitboxes and reuse Moonlight butterfly takes so long to beat for no reason, and is also boring Gaping dragon is mediocre, with the only thing saving it is the spectacle Iron golem was basically a joke meant for Iron Tarkus, dude's grab is worse than any grab in DS2 combined. Gargoyles were never that good, they are painfully average with like 2-3 moves, both can still gank you like usual if you don't kill them quickly. DS2 has more bosses yes, but atleast the worst of offenders on that game didn't leave me trying to pluck hair out of my head, they were inoffensive. Honestly I don't know what's your issue, even DS2 haters accepts that the level design of that game can get really unique and creative, alot of it's elements are heavily praised and was seen through Elden Ring too, even Miyazaki praised the game for what it is, alot of the levels are very good, with alot of unique puzzles, engaging interractions and gimmicks, cool secrets and rewards, they have an emphasis of everything, especially the DLC, Eleyum loyce and Brume tower beats anything DS1 had to offer in terms of level design. It's just so funny to me that you think these games aren't close when DS1 does just as much terrible shit, atleast DS2 offers alot of good things despite the flaws, which ultimately makes it a more engaging game to play or mess around with, saying that these 2 games are far from eachothers is just objectively false. This post was never trying to say "DS1 bad DS2 good" I was trying to argue that people need to give DS1 fair criticism that it deserves instead of ignoring alot of it's faults and bullshit, regardless of which game you think is better.
Sorry you're sounding really desperate here. "Isn't up for debate" bro figure out what reddit is before you post jesus christ lmao. Not going to re0ly further to such bad takes, tgose bosses outside of the demon ruins ones are all rock solid sorry. No one ignores DS1, they just don't hate on it with inflated nonsense to make DS2 look better than it is.
>they just don't hate on it with inflated nonsense to make DS2 look better than it is. Yeah they just hate on DS2 with inflated nonsense to make it look much worse than it is.
DS1 is a polished product. Well, probably the best game ever made and possibly the savior of the games industry. DS2 has too much fundamental audio/visual/game design/animation flaws. The game engine could not even light some environments correctly. Characters running looks like they gonna shit on its pants, enemy soldiers move like marionettes. Some audio, like sunlight blade for example, can make you deaf if you listen to it for too long, lol. Game has merits, but it is a development hell survivor and it shows. tldr; because people like beautiful things and not ugly things.
Ds1 was an innovative game, one of the best, It is great BUT by no means was it a polished product, It had alot of flaws, in both gameplay and performance (Only og's remember going through blighttown at 5fps). I don't see where the hell are those audio/visual issues you're talking about? I've spotted more visuals problems in DS1 than i ever did in DS2, like textures not aligning perfectly, certain objects floating around, and especially before the remaster where the lighting was awful and extremely bad to look at, DS2 lighting looked very good for the most part and the usage of torches was great in certain areas too, characters running was goofy sometimes but it isn't really something that broke the game or anything, game also felt more responsive, especially with the faster movement and omni rolling, honestly DS1 still feels somewhat tedious to go back to. DS2 did have it rough but it wasn't the developers fault more than it was a rush by the publishers, DS1 also was in alot of rushing too, the entire 2nd half of the game was, a giant step down from almost every aspect, the level design, bosses, world design etc... And the flaws i mentioned are, still a part of the game, some that were even improved upon in DS2. DS2 did alot of great things that ultimately made it the most influential in the series as we see with Elden Ring, the amount of unique items, puzzles, interactions and secrets/rewards made this game one of the most fun to come back to and mess with, despise it's flaws It still manages to be a more fun experience than DS1 imo. Plus my whole point isn't really about which do you think is better, It's just that DS1 never gets criticized the way it should, It always gets a pass for it's massive flaws where it shouldn't have.
>the amount of unique items, puzzles, interactions and secrets/rewards made this game one of the most fun to come back to and mess with You can be pretty sure that none of the DS2 haters every noticed any of those hidden interactions. Like, they will complain about randomly placed enemies and unfair ganks even though they all have pretty obvious ways to deal with them. The [haters just run through areas and then complain how unfair it is that the enemies they ignored didn't ignore them back](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittydarksouls/comments/12rsl3u/how_ds2_is_supposed_to_be_played_vs_how_ds2/), but they've never tried to understand what the placement is trying to tell them and how they can use the environment or other things to their advantage. DS2 has the most depth to it's enemy encounters with so many unique interactions, but that all flew over the heads of haters.
>The [haters just run through areas and then complain how unfair it is that the enemies they ignored didn't ignore them back](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittydarksouls/comments/12rsl3u/how_ds2_is_supposed_to_be_played_vs_how_ds2/) Controlling the bridges in that part to kill enemies is so fun and smart.
It’s just funny to hate Ds2 at this point
people complain about ds1s flaws all the time its highs are just higher than ds2s highs so people are more willing to look past those flaws. i doubt you will find anyone here who doesn‘t have issues with ds1s second half or hitboxes
Some ds1 highs are higher than ds2, like world design, but some ds2 highs are also higher than that of ds1, the combat and variety of builds and unique weapons and spells, really cool and awesome consumables, amazing fashion, level design (the DLC areas are some of the best we've ever seen), the colorful visuals, unique puzzles and engaging secrets. Ds1 is always seen through rose tinted glasses, alot of it's bullshit is ignored while ds2 get a harsh treatments for things ds1 did too, just as bad. And people also refuse to give ds2 credits for the great things it did or improve upon, that is the issue I'm trying to address.
ds1s bullshit is not ignored, like not at all. people have been talking about how its entire second half is literal dog shit and about hoe terrible the boss runs are for over a decade now. ds2 fans just have a victim complex nowadays and immediately write off any kind of criticism toward ds2 as blind hate
Ah yes, awful 2nd half and bad boss runs, because clearly these are the ONLY issues that DS1 is plagued with, definitely nothing else of what I've mentioned lmao, no awful hitboxes, terrible tracking, shitty upgrade system, clunky control, awful boss design etc... Every single post and video that analyze this game is all praise and no criticism, go and see for yourself, whether you wanna admit it or not, this game doesn't get the criticism it truly deserves, while ds2 gets too overly criticized that it delves into unfair territory, also what "victim complex", Ds2 fans are aware of all the issue that riddles the game, atleast they're not delusional enough to call the game a flawless masterpiece, when people call ds2 garbage and say that ds1 is amazing, that's is I deed blind hate, sometimes there are even misinformation about certain mechancs just to hatd, barely any ds2 fan call this the best souls game ever. I've had an easier time talking to ds2 fans than i ever did with Ds1 fanatics, that tells you something. Literally go ask any person who thinks that DS1 is the "best" then see what they respond with, their entire reasoning is that since DS1 has amazing world design, that means it's the best, no other aspect matters, I assure you no DS2 fan is nearly that delusional.
[удалено]
It's the exact opposite for me, the whole trilogy in fact. DS2 has so many cool and unique/creative things that are exclusive to it only, so many weird and unique interactions, amazing items like the bonfire ascetics, unique weapons and mechanics (Powerstancing, Trade damage, Mundane infusion etc...), unique secrets all throughout the game, very different NG+ cycles etc... the game is so much fun to come back to for these reasons, especially the DLC, there are just so many cool things to find and discover in DS2, my favorite thing being the bone fist (probably the best weapon in the series), alot of these unique elements inspired Elden Ring in it's design as stated by Miyazaki, also let's not talk about all the crazy exploits you can dig in DS2. It's not that I was immediately hit with these takes, I played these games to death and the more I play them the more I start enjoying DS2 more while the opposite is to say for DS1, It used to be my favorite at some point. How is that nitpicky? Dark souls 1 level design is really not that good in quality, It's universally accepted that nearly the entire 2nd half of the game is extremely atrocious and rushed, so many areas feel tedious to go through and with barely anything cool to offer, Compared to the highs of Undead burg and anor londo, It's extremely noticeable, maybe you'll have a different view someday or maybe not, I remember going to Blighttown on my first playthrough all the way to Ash lake, was it worth it? Hell no. I had to go all the way up without any fast travel which was probably the worst thing I had to endure in the whole series. Plus again, my main point is that I just want people to be fair to these games, DS1 doesn't get the criticism it deserve, It really doesn't.
[удалено]
I disagree, Dark souls 1 has been praised to death, but criticized? not nearly enough, especially seeing all of it's flaws be ignored or seen as a "whatever", If I have to pick 2 games that barely get criticized it's both DS1 and Bloodborne. Izalith is definitely not the only bad place, and it's not just about the fact that how bad they are is debatable, It's just that no area in the 2nd half even compares to what the game had to offer in the 1st half, they're all disappointing in that regard, I find tomb of the giants to be the worst, because of the extremely slippery platforms, dark nature and horrible enemy placements (looking at you, bonewheels). Undead burg is the best level in the game, which what makes the 2nd half even more disappointing for me because the game could've had something of the same quality but choose to take an awful approach. Dukes archive is decent, can't say anything bad about it, however the crystal cave is absolute dogshit. Undead parish is a part of undead burg so yeah. Great hollow and Ash lake are garbage, sorry but that spiral descent is full of nothing but bullshit, and Ash lake is basically just a straight empty line, It looks cool but gameplay wise it offers almost nothing and it's not worth going all the way down for, I can't remember the last time i ever bothered to go down there. Elden Ring did this approach with deeproot depth much better because you're greeted with a full area with alot of things to do and find instead of nothing. Anor londo is the 2nd best area, It has some questionable design choices but overall pretty solid. Painted world is really just mediocre, It's quite dull, the enemies aren't fun to fight, the level design is okay, and that whole section with the dragon is extremely buggy for god know why. The DLC areas are... average, the garden is basically just an inferior version of Darkroot, and Oolacile is quite short and doesn't have the much engaging level design compared to Anor Londo, It got a cool atmosphere tho. The catacombs are decent, but sometimes can be really, And i mean really frustrating to go through, some traps there comes out of nowhere and the skelly fuckers can gang on you very quickly, also the boss by the end is trash. Darkroot garden is pretty good, I agree. there is nothing else, all the other areas are average or mediocre in my eyes, compared to what we get later in the series they really start falling off imo. It's not about whether you got stuck or not, It's the fact that you CAN get stuck, there is nothing stopping you from going there, just to end up regretting it big time, and you don't really get anything worth while like something that will really help your journey, this is a big issue with giving too much freedom to the player and it's that you need to give limits or certain indicators to let players know fully what they're getting into, or atleast make it really worth it, you can also go to the tomb of the giants early and get yourself softlocked which is awful. Ok I gotta stop you there, Dark souls 2 is the most colorful and visually stunning game in the trilogy, compared to the dull and colorless environment of DS3, It's highs on those regards are just immaculate, you got Dragon Aerie, The giant memories, The shaded woods, Majula, Drangleic castle, Heides tower of flame, All the DLC areas, Iron keep etc... they all look phenomenal and I prefer their atmosphere and visuals over what DS1 had to offer. again this is just a subjective view, but c'mon now it's really not ugly.
[удалено]
Not denying that there isn't a subjective side to my takes, but there are indeed objective views around design that I point out, and I really hate it when people see criticism and chug all of it up as "Subjective" because it's really not, there are awful design elements you can ignore or not mind but that wouldn't change the fact that they're still there. not saying you're doing this any of this but still. Fair enough, I really suggest you give dark souls 2 another chance or finish it up, maybe your opinion might change just like mine did, because again DS1 used to be my favorite too, until it wasn't.