-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
LTTP: Dark Souls 2: SotFS (what happens when you keep your expectations in check)
- Thread starter zero shift
- Start date
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
Seeing as I'm waiting for my new PC to arrive and my only real options are destiny or ds2 DLC I thought I would give it a try.
I'm doing the iron king one so I'm in brume tower. So far my experience has been that the level design itself is more interesting than the main game as its at least consistent and has some interesting shortcuts etc. However the enemy placement and design is still pretty lame.
- Almost always fighting multiple enemies.
- Lots of places with fighting multiple melee enemies while having to evade ninja wizard lightning balls.
- making giants randomly piss lava on you just to make you take some damage.
- almost everything is magic resistant. (So much for creating a character how you want)
- that God awful run to blue smelter demon. I know, we will have tons of melee guys, Ranged guys on ledges and faith dudes that force you to fat roll. Yeah dark souls bitches.
- making smelter demon hard by simply giving him a shit ton of armour so now it takes three times the hits it took before. So now he is the same boring boss but just made harder in the lamest way possible. I only tried him twice but its late and I'm tired and really can't be bothered.
Also how can you make the barrel guys explode. I tried arrows, magic and bombs and all just hurt the zombie thing carrying it.
And what are the red things that shoot fire everywhere if you get close? I have seen nothing explain if you can do anything with those yet.
So well done on making a level more interesting to traverse but everything else is almost worse than the main game.
I think blue smelter demon is optional so can someone tell me how far from fume knight am I. I'm tempted to at least fight him before dropping the game for good.
Not far at all. he should be further down.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
Withing the same zone as BSD or do I take a different path?
Yeah in DS2 you are too limited at SL1 for my liking. It's not really that fun to play when you're completely gimped. But since I had started that playthrough I felt I kinda had to power through to see it to the end. But now I'm burnt out so idk if it was a good idea.
I didn't bother with the DLC though because those are about as hard as going into NG+ and so you just get killed way too fast with health that low.
It's definitely a lot harder, especially in the later half. You can't use a shield (which makes some fights like Throne Defender and Watcher very challenging), you have like a third of the usual invincibility frames on a roll (which means you actually can't dodge through some slow attacks because you're not invincible long enough), you don't have much health so late game enemies can kill you in one hit. And yes you can stack on armour but it will reduce the length of your rolls so it's not like there's no tradeoff.
In fact it's by far harder than a Demon's Souls or Dark Souls 1 SL1 playthrough. In those games an SL1 playthrough is quite similar to a normal playthrough except you have access to less equipment, you do less damage and you have less health. But you can still play the exact same way. Bloodborne's first half as lvl4 is also fairly similar, but towards the end it becomes as hard or harder than DS2 because everything starts killing you in 1 hit.
Moon_frogger
Member
I agree with almost all criticisms. Sotfs is still my most played game in the series though. It's amazing.
EatinOlives
Member
I'm not taking about graphical fidelity, I'm taking about at direction.
While I don't think that it is better than Dark Souls 1 or Demon's Souls, and in terms of atmosphere and tension I would argue that it is a significant step down, I really, really enjoyed Dark Souls 2 as a game. It has incredible replay-ability, a much improved co-op and multiplayer system (except for the damn hackers), and some really incredible boss fights. I sunk the entire past summer into it, and while I feel pretty much done, I absolutely got my money's worth and then some.
I would love a sequel to what Dark Souls 2 was doing as another brand, with even more boss fights, boss invasions and mixed battlefields (multiple bosses, invaders and co-op helpers all in the same arena) with Diablo 3-style Adventure mode and loot. There are a ton of different build options in Dark Souls 2 that could be expanded on even more, so I hope it's more arcade-style design isn't completely forgotten due to Bloodbornism (another fantastic game that I have yet to dive into due to it being too scary. Nice job Miyazaki!).
I would love a sequel to what Dark Souls 2 was doing as another brand, with even more boss fights, boss invasions and mixed battlefields (multiple bosses, invaders and co-op helpers all in the same arena) with Diablo 3-style Adventure mode and loot. There are a ton of different build options in Dark Souls 2 that could be expanded on even more, so I hope it's more arcade-style design isn't completely forgotten due to Bloodbornism (another fantastic game that I have yet to dive into due to it being too scary. Nice job Miyazaki!).
JudgmentJay
Member
Alright, you've convinced me. I'll give it another try. Did you do the DLC as well?
it's at the button of the area you were in before the BSD's optional area.
unless I'm forgetting something it shouldn't take long to get to fume knight from where you are.
I chickened out haha. I found the DLCs challenging with a lvl 120 character so I wasn't really feeling up to doing the same thing with a character that's way weaker. I can see Sir Alonne being very fun and tense to fight (although, the lack of invincibility frames on dodges might be fairly annoying considering you need to dodge a lot in that fight) but the other bosses would probably be quite frustrating considering how much damage they do and how much health they have. I'm sure it's feasible but it probably boils down to how long you're willing to hit your head against a wall until it breaks
EatinOlives
Member
Man some time spent with DS2 is making me realize how lenient dodging is in Bloodborne. I was able to get real sloppy with my timing in BB but I'm getting hit when I'm not concentrating in DS2. Gotta get back into that rhythm.
Mr_Kuschels
Member
Dark Souls 2 never reaches the genius of DS1, but more Souls is always a good thing.
Your all arguing wrong
It's clearly
Demon's Souls - Epitome of greatness defined
Dark Souls - Being the second best game ever isn't too bad of a consolation prize
Dark souls 2 - Main game is pretty cool, add the DLC and now we have the top 3 games of all time
1. Demon's Souls
1a. Dark Souls
1b. Dark souls 2
2. Bloodborne, because some of the boss fights are annoying as hell (fuck you rom, and Ebriatas in the chalice dungeons)
Stealth edit
Mix in Quake 3 and Zelda:OOT somewhere in that list
It's clearly
Demon's Souls - Epitome of greatness defined
Dark Souls - Being the second best game ever isn't too bad of a consolation prize
Dark souls 2 - Main game is pretty cool, add the DLC and now we have the top 3 games of all time
1. Demon's Souls
1a. Dark Souls
1b. Dark souls 2
2. Bloodborne, because some of the boss fights are annoying as hell (fuck you rom, and Ebriatas in the chalice dungeons)
Stealth edit
Mix in Quake 3 and Zelda:OOT somewhere in that list
Cyborg
Member
It is always good to keep your expectations in check. Dark Souls 2 was not a bad game just in my opinion not as goog as Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne.
Lack of atmosphere, real secrets (not that Bloodborne had many) and level designs were my biggest issues with the game. Making it for me worst game in the series.
Lack of atmosphere, real secrets (not that Bloodborne had many) and level designs were my biggest issues with the game. Making it for me worst game in the series.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Never played Demons/Dark Souls for more than 10 minutes each but I am so hopelessly addicted to Bloodborne to the point where I keep playing it for so many hours after platinuming it, and to the point where I got excited about Dark Souls 3 since it's the same director of Bloodborne.
I kinda interested in playing Dark Souls 1 (through PS3) and 2 (through Scholar) now just to catch up with 3 so I can understand the lore and the world better but I wonder if I will burn myself out playing all the Souls game like that after so many hours playing Bloodborne, hahah.
It seems incredibly daunting, tbh. Hopefully if in the end I decided not to pursue this, DS3 can be understood/appreciated fully even if I have no experience playing the previous games.
I kinda interested in playing Dark Souls 1 (through PS3) and 2 (through Scholar) now just to catch up with 3 so I can understand the lore and the world better but I wonder if I will burn myself out playing all the Souls game like that after so many hours playing Bloodborne, hahah.
It seems incredibly daunting, tbh. Hopefully if in the end I decided not to pursue this, DS3 can be understood/appreciated fully even if I have no experience playing the previous games.
So much fun. I fought him over and over using bonfire ascetics; one of my proudest Souls moments was beating him at SL1. My favorite Souls boss.
Depending on how much do you like the games. I would say 70% of my gaming time this year has been split between Bloodborne and Dark Souls 2, an I'm not burnt at all.
That being said, I don't think you're gonna need to play the prequels for DS3. It's not like these games are story driven anyways.
I'm playing it now, pretty open minded on the whole "it's a disappointment" thing. Just got to No-Man's Wharf and while I'm clearing the zone in one run I think the zone is pretty great with it's design and atmosphere. Love having to light all the torches to make the zone more bearable (though I'm guessing it wasn't the case before SotFS).
Bloodborne is lenient on everything. Blows my mind at times how much they let the player get away with.
I have to admit that I don't understand the complaints over "more enemies" being a negative. It's a challenge in a different way. I think claiming it's an artificial difficulty spike and stating it's "non-sense" is a cop-out of an excuse, but hey opinions right?
mickcenary
Member
Also, it's all well and good to compare bosses and weapons and level design and whatnot, but I think it's fair to say that had they kept the same engine, DS2 would be a markedly better game.
There is something objectively awry with the way DS2 handles and registers the outside world unto the player character, be it movement, hit detection, etc; even more so when you compare it to Bloodborne.
Was it purely to mix thangs up that they developed a new engine?
There is something objectively awry with the way DS2 handles and registers the outside world unto the player character, be it movement, hit detection, etc; even more so when you compare it to Bloodborne.
Was it purely to mix thangs up that they developed a new engine?
Yeah there shouldn't be any issues if it's anything like the other games in the series. You might miss a couple of "haha that weapon belonged to a guy in Dark Souls 1" moments when reading item descriptions but honestly that stuff is so far down the list of things that are good about the series that I wouldn't worry about it at all.
The only reason to play the games in order is to see how the games progressed over time. It's one of the few series where playing the games out of order is not an issue.
Dark Souls 2 is a story about losing history in as much as it's losing yourself. When I got the pharis cap for the first time and it had a completely different legend attached to it, that keyed me in on what they might be doing with the lore.
With so much of the past completely lost after the chosen undead linked the flame (if they didn't pick the dark lord ending) no records of the past were kept, and the legacy of the world faded into soot as every succeeding kingdom did. Lordran's importance was lost on the world as time passed on and undead kept feeding the flame. We never really know for sure what the throne amounts to, or even if it has any tie to the actual first flame or not. The game's initial concepts were flimsy, but what they did to it with dlc's and updates later helped fix it's place in the story, and DS3 may be doing something interesting with a world where the flame is not allowed to go out.
The Dark Lord ending cannot lead into DS2 because the flame extinguishes, but the "eternal" twilight that is observed of the flame may just be the remains of "chosen undeads" and "monarchs" constantly being filtered into the flame one "cycle" after another, barely keeping it going as long as possible. To clarify, the cycle is not a magical state of the world, but a result of the actions of manipulators and the nature of the first flame being fed new souls for as long as possible.
Currently we don't know for sure if DS3 is going to pick up after a specific ending in DS2, or even if it will logically follow all 3 worldstats (Link the Fire -> Ascend the Throne, Link the Fire -> Abandon the Throne, The Dark Lord) Though the latter 2 could be said to both lead to a world of dark encompassing all light. I'm very interesting to see what they do with it, as they're explicitly throwing in the giant lord and ivory crown into trailers, so they have to exist after some state of DS2....???
But yeah. DS2 is cool. The individual stories are interesting and people oversold the "influence" of past lordsouls, or trying to match every single location to somewhere from DS1. The short answer is that possibly none of it is, and that Dranglaec is across the sea from Lordran, with the Lord Vessel possibly being stolen from Lordran by some past inhabitants of Majula, long before any of the events of DS2 lore. (Additionally, I believe the influence of DS1 lordsouls is more of a curse of possession, driven to actions and knowledge associated with the nature of the souls.
Lore rant for funsies:
And then the actual stories of the 4 kings are all individually interesting tales of kingdoms falling to one tragedy or another. It's a cool game . Not a sheer work of art like DS1, but an interesting and good game in its own right, and one that gets thrown under the bus primarily by shoddy lore videos of the shoddy plot of the unpatched game. The ultimate result of the stories is much more interesting than what we had at launch, and I kind of wish we'd all had that more coherent and interesting story from the getgo. DS3 will likely do more to make people appreciate SotFS's story moreso.
With so much of the past completely lost after the chosen undead linked the flame (if they didn't pick the dark lord ending) no records of the past were kept, and the legacy of the world faded into soot as every succeeding kingdom did. Lordran's importance was lost on the world as time passed on and undead kept feeding the flame. We never really know for sure what the throne amounts to, or even if it has any tie to the actual first flame or not. The game's initial concepts were flimsy, but what they did to it with dlc's and updates later helped fix it's place in the story, and DS3 may be doing something interesting with a world where the flame is not allowed to go out.
The Dark Lord ending cannot lead into DS2 because the flame extinguishes, but the "eternal" twilight that is observed of the flame may just be the remains of "chosen undeads" and "monarchs" constantly being filtered into the flame one "cycle" after another, barely keeping it going as long as possible. To clarify, the cycle is not a magical state of the world, but a result of the actions of manipulators and the nature of the first flame being fed new souls for as long as possible.
Currently we don't know for sure if DS3 is going to pick up after a specific ending in DS2, or even if it will logically follow all 3 worldstats (Link the Fire -> Ascend the Throne, Link the Fire -> Abandon the Throne, The Dark Lord) Though the latter 2 could be said to both lead to a world of dark encompassing all light. I'm very interesting to see what they do with it, as they're explicitly throwing in the giant lord and ivory crown into trailers, so they have to exist after some state of DS2....???
But yeah. DS2 is cool. The individual stories are interesting and people oversold the "influence" of past lordsouls, or trying to match every single location to somewhere from DS1. The short answer is that possibly none of it is, and that Dranglaec is across the sea from Lordran, with the Lord Vessel possibly being stolen from Lordran by some past inhabitants of Majula, long before any of the events of DS2 lore. (Additionally, I believe the influence of DS1 lordsouls is more of a curse of possession, driven to actions and knowledge associated with the nature of the souls.
Lore rant for funsies:
The Lost Sinner possibly having created the old chaos that elleum loyce was built on, and being turned into a chaos bug and burrowing into the head of the prisoner kept in sinner's rise.
Additionally, the thing the old iron king met beneath his iron keep was a ruler of smelter demons (blue smelter is the artificial demon, red is the one that lept from below) his soul was taken by those that lurk below and he became the vessel to breed ichorus earth. It is likely that his lord soul is what gave him drive to become great and power to gain a great soul as he built his kingdom. Additionally, old iron king looks like a big molten smelter demon with a body.
I wouldn't say Duke's Dear Freja is a reincarnation of seath, but rather is colored by the soul it covets. The specific lore of najka and tark actually imply that they come from Tseldora, and the brightstone of Tseldora was likely created by the Ancient Dragon in times long past, with the soul giving freja a desire for soul magic, and affinity for immortal dragons in general. (Freja has a past prior to acquiring the lord soul, as a pet spider, and it grew in size from consuming souls)
Rotten may be Pharros, but the greater implication is that the gutter is also populated by remnants of shulva, The Rotten may actually be The Sunken King himself, as you never find his body, and the wretched rotten look good sitting next to Elana.
Additionally, the thing the old iron king met beneath his iron keep was a ruler of smelter demons (blue smelter is the artificial demon, red is the one that lept from below) his soul was taken by those that lurk below and he became the vessel to breed ichorus earth. It is likely that his lord soul is what gave him drive to become great and power to gain a great soul as he built his kingdom. Additionally, old iron king looks like a big molten smelter demon with a body.
I wouldn't say Duke's Dear Freja is a reincarnation of seath, but rather is colored by the soul it covets. The specific lore of najka and tark actually imply that they come from Tseldora, and the brightstone of Tseldora was likely created by the Ancient Dragon in times long past, with the soul giving freja a desire for soul magic, and affinity for immortal dragons in general. (Freja has a past prior to acquiring the lord soul, as a pet spider, and it grew in size from consuming souls)
Rotten may be Pharros, but the greater implication is that the gutter is also populated by remnants of shulva, The Rotten may actually be The Sunken King himself, as you never find his body, and the wretched rotten look good sitting next to Elana.
And then the actual stories of the 4 kings are all individually interesting tales of kingdoms falling to one tragedy or another. It's a cool game . Not a sheer work of art like DS1, but an interesting and good game in its own right, and one that gets thrown under the bus primarily by shoddy lore videos of the shoddy plot of the unpatched game. The ultimate result of the stories is much more interesting than what we had at launch, and I kind of wish we'd all had that more coherent and interesting story from the getgo. DS3 will likely do more to make people appreciate SotFS's story moreso.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
^ No, dude, didn't you get the memo, DS2 has no lore and no story because reasons! xD
Me too, me too!
Me too, me too!into.it.over.it
Member
Tempted to pick this up on Xbox one. What's the online population like? One of my favourite things was helping people *cough*andgettinghelp*cough* with bosses and levelling up using other people's enemies instead of my own because I was scared of getting stuck and unable to level up. That was one of the most annoying things about DS2. Having enemies stop respawning after being killed so many times. That and the lack of atmosphere.
Still an absolutely amazing game though.
Still an absolutely amazing game though.
While I do think DS2 has the weakest story/lore of the games overall, after the general hate hyperbole dies down and DS3 references various things from it (given it already seems to be based on things established in the DLC) I definitely think people will go back and find a lot of things to appreciate about DS2's post-DLC (which brought a lot of it together) story/lore, because there's still multiple things going on under the surface that I see completely ignored in dismissals of it, even if it's not quite as much as the other games.
JudgmentJay
Member
I chickened out haha. I found the DLCs challenging with a lvl 120 character so I wasn't really feeling up to doing the same thing with a character that's way weaker. I can see Sir Alonne being very fun and tense to fight (although, the lack of invincibility frames on dodges might be fairly annoying considering you need to dodge a lot in that fight) but the other bosses would probably be quite frustrating considering how much damage they do and how much health they have. I'm sure it's feasible but it probably boils down to how long you're willing to hit your head against a wall until it breaks
Heh, yeah. Alonne at level 1 seems not fun. I might do the DLC but skip out on the areas designed around co-op. That said I'll be wrapping up my level 1 run tonight and I think I'll hold to my opinion that a Dark Souls 2 SL1 run is not much harder than a normal run. The mace destroys a lot of bosses, and Brightbugs close the power gap for end-game bosses.
Bloodborne only appeared to not have secrets because of the internet age. If it wasn't for the internet, I would have never found Castle Cainhurst, an entire hidden area.
Guys, I have DS2: SotFS on PS4 but haven't been able to play the three Crowns expansions yet, that were originally DLC. Most people say they were really good and the best parts of DS2.
Do you guys feel Dark Souls III will get DLC that's equally good? I'm assuming DS3 will have DLC in the first place, maybe late 2016.
Do you guys feel Dark Souls III will get DLC that's equally good? I'm assuming DS3 will have DLC in the first place, maybe late 2016.
At the very least, I can say the Pursuer's sword-based grab seems to be fixed. Haven't been accidentally caught by it in SotFS. Scholar seems like a much more complete game. Placement and difficulty just seems more thoughtful overall.^ No, dude, didn't you get the memo, DS2 has no lore and no story because reasons! xD
I went back and played Dark Souls 1 recently and am actually kind of baffled at how much simpler it seems and have thought that its simplicity is what defines it more than difficulty.
Dark Souls 2 layers everything and if you aren't a fan of old RPGs and stat management... you're probably not going to like the changes. In a way, its obtuse and nonsensical systems are what make it closer to Demon's Souls, which definitely received a much more mixed reception than Dark Souls 1.
This stuff is effectively the wall chicken of the game. I like secrets but I think they expect people to use the internet nowadays and that's why these "secrets" are often so obfuscated.
JudgmentJay
Member
Fromsoft has a pretty great track record with DLC. Artorias of the Abyss, the Crown DLCs, and The Old Hunters are all arguably the best content in their respective games. So if I were a betting man I'd wager that yes, Dark Souls 3 will have some great DLC.
Interesting.. I haven't beat any of these yet.
Edit: I think I've beat the iron king... But how do I enter the dlc area?
I'm currently playing Crown of the Ivory King, and I was wondering if
Also, man I'm bad. I think I've played the game 116 hours and still haven't beaten the game and it's my first playthrough.
the enemies in Frigid Outskirts stop spawning after have killed them a couple of times? I think the first horse didn't show up the last two times I tried getting to the boss
Bloody_Five
Banned
If think it's to the credit of Dark Souls and From Software that :
-the difference between DK 1 and DK 2 is the difference between great/genius (DK1) and very good (DK2)
-I find DK 2 to be vastly inferior to DK 1 especially when it comes to level design and atmosphere and yet I have sunken more than 200 hours in the game
-I find DK2 to be the weakest of the Souls games and yet it's miles above 99% of the industry output.
I always feel humbled and glad to have been contemporary to some true masterpieces.
-the difference between DK 1 and DK 2 is the difference between great/genius (DK1) and very good (DK2)
-I find DK 2 to be vastly inferior to DK 1 especially when it comes to level design and atmosphere and yet I have sunken more than 200 hours in the game
-I find DK2 to be the weakest of the Souls games and yet it's miles above 99% of the industry output.
I always feel humbled and glad to have been contemporary to some true masterpieces.
hydrophilic attack
Member
That area sucks, but IIRC the horses only spawn a set number of times and then stop spawning. You could even just go around the area for a couple hours, while killing horses over and over, and de-spawn them all in a single run.
Ds2 is in the last place of my favourite souls games list but i still played the shit out of it(and i still do it,from time to time),awesome game.
I think that says a lot about the quality of the franchise,i'll never get bored of souls games.
If there's a game that taught me about keeping my expectations in check is mgsv.
I think that says a lot about the quality of the franchise,i'll never get bored of souls games.
If there's a game that taught me about keeping my expectations in check is mgsv.
I think each DLC has added 20 hours of gameplay for me, I'm really slow.
Yeah, but the last tries I've only had to deal with one of the horses, so it's doable now. But somewhat tedious. It was the same for me before Sir Alonne. That area got me really frustrated as well.
I played Demon Souls and loved it, then played Bloodborne and loved it more
Then I tried an DS2 SOTFS and... can't get into it. Game feels more obtuse the BB, like a big step back (level) design and gameplay wise.
I beat the big giant, then in another area some boss fell into the water and died (lol glitch) and that's it.
Kind of has me not wanting to get DS3.
Then I tried an DS2 SOTFS and... can't get into it. Game feels more obtuse the BB, like a big step back (level) design and gameplay wise.
I beat the big giant, then in another area some boss fell into the water and died (lol glitch) and that's it.
Kind of has me not wanting to get DS3.
This os much!
I never "hated" DS2 but shortly after finishing it a friend bought DS1 and wanted me to play it with him. For some reason I was missing a lot of gameplay mechanics from DS2 and the game felt less fluid for this reason. I still love Sen's and what comes after it more than any part of DS2 but still.
He bought DS2 and we've been playing that ever since. The NG+(+++...) have a reason to be and I was surprised by this the first time playing.
The DLC is just amazing.
Lorewise it's a step down IMO but the gameplay makes it amazing. (Mind you, I rarely had any hitbox issues, lucky me I guess...)
hydrophilic attack
Member
If you're talking about Dragonrider, him being able to fall off the arena is a deliberate design decision