Was Dark Souls 2 the greatest game that From Software ever made?

[Morenatsu.]

I mean I liked some of it

 

[Ezekiel]

I'm fine with people prefering Dark Souls 1 or the OG Demon's Souls. Those games is spectacular. Dark Souls 3 on the other hand was pure decline in almost every way imaginable. But it had better graffix I guess?

This was SDG's best thread and one of the few times he ever made sense. Probably because these are modern-era games being discussed, he actually played them all not just the declined versions or remakes made 20 years later, and for once had adequate context.

Think most console players are like that because their options for old games are so limited. Either the game isn't available for the current or last gen console or they do have the system but the game is out of print and expensive. So they become used to only playing the modern. He got rid of his PC for a fucking PS5, so is fully in that way of thinking.

 

[Ash]

Yeah, probably. Back when I still played on consoles (and didn't just emulate everything w/ PC), I owned a sizable collection of them, from the oldest to the latest, and game stores were still around selling good old shit. Those days are mostly gone, and I most definitely was an outlier. Most gamers just get the latest console and then when the new one releases the old one collects dust.

It's still a similar problem on PC though. Steam for example seems to display its lists with huge bias for recent games. Makes sense, of course, but there isn't even a search filter by date released. There's an option to "sort by release date", but that puts the latest releases to the top, with old stuff virtual miles down the list to be loaded.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

I saw a guy playing Seeker of the fire on stream I had on for background noise. It looks like a really good mod. It changes the level lay outs to include the DLCs earlier into the game and does a lot of changes to the maps themselves. Looks like a really solid mod and I'm looking forward to playing through it.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Think most console players are like that because their options for old games are so limited. Either the game isn't available for the current or last gen console or they do have the system but the game is out of print and expensive. So they become used to only playing the modern. He got rid of his PC for a fucking PS5, so is fully in that way of thinking.

That's the practical reason, but there's also an ideological one.

PC gaming in some ways represents a more freedom-based mindset. Many people prefer PC gaming because of the freedom it entails (mods, source ports of old games, etc etc) even if it ends up being more hassle sometimes. That mindset alone requires a level of self awareness about the industry that the average gamer lacks. When you're being spoon fed all the propaganda pumped out by the gaming industry - that everything is innovating and advancing, that games are more fun than ever, and that you're getting good value when you pay $60 for a 3 hour long game with $100 worth of microtransactions available on day 1 - it becomes very easy to be complacent and play whatever they spoon feed to you. Console gamers who resist that and start to think for themselves more naturally develop a more free and open mindset, especially if they seriously want to explore older games (and not crappy remastered versions). Then, naturally, they often become PC gamers by pure accident, just by their own growth and independence and being held back by consoles.

This is why I believe there aren't many intelligent console gamers who take the hobby seriously. People either buy into the gaming propaganda, or they don't really care enough about gaming to really explore what it has to offer. The ones who do cease to be console gamers.

On a side note, I have recently been playing the new-ish Perfect Dark sourceport. It's amazing. I had never played the game before and I'm honestly shocked and baffled that a game that old (running on the N64 no less!) can look that good and contain so much content and gameplay. What a blast! Meanwhile my housemate has been playing the Xbox 360 remastered version, and it looks like a tacky high-res texture and model pack lazily slapped on the game, it looks horrible, and the free-aiming mechanic just doesn't work all that well with the thumbsticks of modern controllers (modern controllers are largely garbage, but that's a different discussion).

I find it baffling that I can play a game in 60FPS, with original/authentic graphics, with high precision mouse inputs that feel amazing and have a great time for free thanks to community effort, and Microsoft can't even get a professionally-made port of one of their greatest games right (that they bought, not made). It's very telling how woefully abhorrent console gaming truly is.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

You're putting too much thought into this. Some people want the most powerful option and others want the least hassle. Most don't have any big brained thoughts and go with whatever suits them. Tribalism in gaming is stupid when all the big consoles have like 5 exclusives and the rest of the library is near identical.

 

[JarlFrank]

I finished Dark Souls 1 last week and am playing through Dark Souls 2 now. I heard a lot of bad things about it but I'm actually having fun.

The only shitty areas so far were Black Gulch (lol fuck those statues) but it was short enough to not be too great a bother, and Iron Keep which had good level design but spammed too many knights at you (naming them Alonne Knights must have been a joke).

 

[AlwaysBrotoMen]

I think Elden ring was heavily inspired by DS2.

 

[Talby]

I suspect DS2 shipped with a slow release toxin inside the packaging that causes those of already low IQ (sub 80) to become even dumber, hence explaining why it has some "people" who consider it good even today.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Then by all means, objectively explain to us plebs why the game isn't good, oh big brain savant.

 

[JarlFrank]

I'm pretty far into the game now. Went through all the areas before you can go to the king, and unlocked the first two DLC areas.

I'm still liking it. The only issue a lot of people cite that I agree with is that there's perhaps a little too many gank squads around, you regularly find yourself attacked by dozens of enemies at once. Other than that? It's great. And even the enemy spam isn't too bad if you know how to manage them. It's much more of a crowd control game than DS1, which was more of a 1v1 combat game.

People complain about some of the bosses being crap, like those three skeleton kings that spawn skeleton armies when they die, or the congregation which is two clerics, a wizard, and a bunch of weak melee dudes.
I loved those fights. They put a twist on the Dark Souls boss formula. Rather than just throwing one strong enemy at you whose moveset you have to learn, it's a group fight where you have to strategize about target priority and positioning. Why do people want every boss fight to be the same? These group fights add much-needed variety.

Exploration is decent. Levels are smaller and less interconnected than DS1's, but they're visually beautiful and there's still plenty of little secrets to find. My favorites to explore were the first castle in the forest, which has several optional areas including a super hard fire salamander pit, and the bastille which has two different starting points (one reached from the castle in the forest, the other from the ghost pirate wharf) that eventually converge. Visually, the ruins in the shaded woods were my favorite, that place just has such a comfy vibe.

The only area where the overly numerous gank squads became a problem was the Iron Keep but those guys are manageable if you pull them into a doorway and spear them as they try to get through, and the key to dealing with the archers is to dodge behind pieces of architecture to break their line of sight. It's a challenge but it's not unfair. The Black Gulch was the worst because poison just isn't fun, but I get what they were going for and if you approach the place strategically by going around the edges and destroying statues as you progress, rather than just rushing through the middle, it's manageable.

I expected much worse considering the game's reputation. I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised. So far I haven't encountered a truly shit area yet, except maybe Black Gulch, but that at least isn't very big, and I can see what they were trying to do there. Haven't encountered any obvious low effort areas that were slapped together in 5 minutes like DS1's demon ruins yet.

 

[Multidirectional]

Haven't encountered any obvious low effort areas that were slapped together in 5 minutes like DS1's demon ruins yet.

There aren't any of those in DSII. The lamest area to me is probably Heide's Tower of Flame but since it's so short I can't even be bothered to complain about it much. First two games to me are peak Souls, the two games that came after not so much.

 

[Dr1f7]

Haven't encountered any obvious low effort areas that were slapped together in 5 minutes like DS1's demon ruins yet.

There aren't any of those in DSII. The lamest area to me is probably Heide's Tower of Flame but since it's so short I can't even be bothered to complain about it much. First two games to me are peak Souls, the two games that came after not so much.

this. ds3 is so boring i couldn't make it half way through, ER is so boring i couldn't make it probably 1/10th of the way through

to ER's merit though, it's more or less what an elder scrolls game should be

 

[Silverfish]

Elder Scrolls games should be so boring you can't make it 1/10th of the way through?

 

[Skinwalker]

Never played DS2, but I condemn it.

 

[Dr1f7]

Elder Scrolls games should be so boring you can't make it 1/10th of the way through?

10% > 0%

 

[DJOGamer PT]

JarlFrank are you playing vanilla or SotFS?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

First two games to me are peak Souls, the two games that came after not so much.

Yes, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are peak souls, whereas King's Souls and Soul Souls are lesser games.

 

[Ezekiel]

Demon's Souls - ~450 hours
Dark Souls - ~500 hours
Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition - ~1,100 hours
Dark Souls II - 290 hours
Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin - 99 hours
Dark Souls III - 65 hours
Bloodborne - ~40 hours
Sekiro - 43 hours

Elden Ring...

Bleh. I can't see myself buying another FromSoftware game at this point. They doubled and tripled down on too many of the negatives and repeated themselves until it was beyond tiresome.

 

[silphCo]

Its a vast, open world, with nothing in it, where you break enemy moves by walking around them or not locking on.

 

[Skinwalker]

Demon's Souls - ~450 hours
Dark Souls - ~500 hours
Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition - ~1,100 hours

See, there's your problem. Should never buy into the hype and play the same game over and over again.

 

[Ezekiel]

What?

 

[JarlFrank]

JarlFrank are you playing vanilla or SotFS?

SotFS

 

[9ted6]

Bleh. I can't see myself buying another FromSoftware game at this point. They doubled and tripled down on too many of the negatives and repeated themselves until it was beyond tiresome.

Despite them saying Elden Ring was a fresh new take on their formula it felt like the most recycled stale example of it to date.

They took a page from Bethesda and rode off making the same game for the last 13 years.

 

[Ezekiel]

JarlFrank are you playing vanilla or SotFS?

SotFS

I prefer the enemy positions and choices in the original DS2.