Dark Souls II has an original game world? What? Dark Souls II's setting is the dullest thing ever. Like, wow, some old ladies laugh at you for playing video games, welcome to a place where nobody knows anything and nothing really matters. So originals. It's not anything that really feels like a cohesive, compelling world. It's just stuff. Random, Dark Souls-ish stuff. Every boss fight is a variation on the same thing, and when it isn't, it's pathetically easy. The first game at least felt like an actual adventure. Drangleic is just a bunch of bored people with memory problems.
Of the 3 Dark Souls games, 2 is the most original. 1 is a more classical fantasy setting. 3 is the dullest one. But 2 setting is a familiar place, but with enough unique things to make more memorable and it's own thing in the series.
Also don't be a contrarian, DS2 world is just as compelling and cohesive as any of From games.
Finally, the fact it has the best mechanics, levels and uniqueness in the trilogy defietively make it the best DS.
Thief II's levels are good in themselves, but they don't really come together to make an interesting campaign. Then there's the recycled levels near the end, too. What's it that's supposed to make the levels ‘much better’? Are you another one of those people who hate any mission that isn't about robbing mansions?
They do make interesting an campaign. It's retarded to say otherwise. You can argue that T1 is more interesting, but that doesn't make T2 uninteresting.
There's no repeated levels in T2. T1 on the other hand...
They have overall better design (bigger, more complex - I still find new shit everytime I replay).
Thief is a stealth game. T1 had a rocky development. Because of that there are level whose design doesn't fit that of a stealth. Now you migth say that say that makes the experience more varied sure, but it also isn't as focused and consistent as T2.
Same thing with Doom II. The additions were good and certainly help mods, but mods aren't relevant. The levels are okay... I don't have any problems with the level design, but none of it was really memorable. It felt like an expansion pack. The aesthetic was boring and didn't develop in an interesting way like it did in the first game.
Doom 2 is pretty much Doom but with more stuff and variety.
What wrong about it being an expansion?
The base gameplay was already great. The only thing they had to do is give us more, which they did.
It seems like all three of these games have the same problem of the overall composure of their campaigns being quite lacking. I guess you just don't care.
DS2 world and campgain is just consistent as DS1 and DeS.
T2 is much more consistent with every aspect of it's design than T1.
And while variety in T1 is good, it's somehow bad in Doom 2?
Yeah, and Fallout New Vegas is also a Fallout game, and not just in name.
The tone and atmosphere are very much alike (New Vegas is even more like Fallout 1 in this regard than Fallout 2). The game world is still brutal and intriging. The campgain is very enjoyable and replayble, as well as the side quests.
And gameplay wise the New Vegas is better. Why? Well turn based system with only 1 PC is a really dumb design decision, and then Fallout 1 character development system is unbalanced and very easy to break. Two mistakes New Vegas doesn't commit.
This would be true if mechanically speaking Pokemon games since 3rd gen weren't more complex than most RPG's.