Decided to try this again.
Overall, the game is still very bad but not as bad as I thought. The only good things about this are:
1. It has a lot of content.
2. Lots of spells which I like.
Everything else is really bad.
1. The movement. The most atrocious movement out of all FROM games. Dark Souls 1 was deliberate and you had to plan dodges and stamina management. In Dark Souls 3 you had to play more reactive. Here, you do neither. Everything moves in slow motion, as if everyone is bored or sleepwalking. Dodging is almost as easy as in Dark Souls 3, especially against bosses.
2. The enemies. The game just throws mobs of them at you. What's the point? After I fought another gank for the hundredth time, the tedium got to me and I usually don't have problems with grinding. Tedious. That's the word that best describes DS2. After I defeated 3 dark phantoms that spawned one after another I just paused the game and took an hour long break. Never done that before.
3. The bosses. I struggle to remember their names even. Extremely easy, extremely uninteresting. Only died once to any of them and that was the Rotten because I didn't notice I was standing on a flaming pit. Haven't been to DLC areas yet and apparently the DLC bosses are good. But the vanilla ones are absolute dogshit.
4. Area design. Really bad. By the time I got to Black Gultch it dawned on me why they were so: the devs simply got bored and just populated what level were to be in the game with mobs of enemies and other bullshit like a million statues spitting poison. This game does not require skill but patience.
As a Souls game: 2/10
As a standalone game: 5-6/10
Even if it's on sale for 10 bucks, only buy it if you have lots of time and a capacity for boredom. If not, you will find that the game is dogshit like any sane person would.
You're playing Scholar of First Sin, so the fail lies in you. A person should play the original.
You should also play in Company of Champions, for greatly increased difficulty. Bosses become more interesting, so do normal enemies. Both are typical Souls fare really, except harder than DS1 when played with this covenant.
DS2 has some weak areas, mainly Heide's Tower of Flame, but some great ones also - No Man's Wharf, Lower Brightsone Cove, Shrine of Amana - and many, many areas that are at least characterful with good mood if nothing else and usually have typical Souls monsters and monster placement.
If you think DS1 had fewer mobs or was somehow fundamentally different in its approach to monster placement, you don't know what you're talking about. You may be confusing vague nostalgia for DS1 with a perceptive critique of DS2. Some people tend to confuse those two things.
You have the whole premise wrong anyway. There's nothing "crappy" or "lazy" about design involving fights with two or more monsters at once. What would be boring is if every fight involved only one monster at a time (though very often the game gives you exactly that if you want to put in the effort to bait and wait or if you advance with care).
Given that DS3 went the way of Bloodborne in its level design, focusing on a certain sense of realism, and abandoning the characterful and quirky level design of DS2, it's safe to say DS2 level design won't ever be equalled in its own playing field, unfortunately (at least by From). You realise DS2 was great when you compare it with DS3, which was merely good.