That and the fact you can only meet Patches near the bridge in the catacombs if you go down there early in the game. If you wait until later, he's moved on to the tomb of the giants so you might never see the Bridge encounter.That said, if you’re fool-hardy and determined enough to go through the Catacombs early on, the game will also reward you with a great weapon. That Pinwheel is such a pushover makes this a curious case. Perhaps they originally intended that area to be accessed earlier, but changed it just enough to discourage it over the others.
Huh...I never knew of either of those. Interesting.That and the fact you can only meet Patches near the bridge in the catacombs if you go down there early in the game. If you wait until later, he's moved on to the tomb of the giants so you might never see the Bridge encounter.
So yeah, it does feel like the graveyard was supposed to be a viable option early in the game and they later changed it by making the skeletons reform quickly.
Admittedly, it is often interesting to find clues like this that suggest a games early design before it got changed to it's final one. Dark Souls 2 original version of the gutter was apparently a lot more like Blightown mixed with New Londo, with a bunch of extra underground ruins.
I feel Dark Souls 2 is the least good of the Souls games for numerous reasons but it's perhaps the most fascinating to look at what it is and what it probably was originally meant to be. Such as the Aqueduct near the Shrine of Winter was allegedly supposed to be a shortcut to bypass the shrine entirely to get to the castle early, but presumably would have had to beat some brutal ass boss or something to use it.Huh...I never knew of either of those. Interesting.
Instead we got Bloodborne, which by most accounts could be considered a fair or at least understandable compromise. However it also reveals why B teams shouldn’t really be a “thing” to helm a project completely. Backup efforts at most.I feel Dark Souls 2 is the least good of the Souls games for numerous reasons but it's perhaps the most fascinating to look at what it is and what it probably was originally meant to be. Such as the Aqueduct near the Shrine of Winter was allegedly supposed to be a shortcut to bypass the shrine entirely to get to the castle early, but presumably would have had to beat some brutal ass boss or something to use it.
Or the numerous hints the plot was originally going to have a lot more time travel in it(not just the giant memories).
I think it's good if a studio doesn't hinge on one person. You have to give other people a chance to grow as creator. On it's own merits DkS2 wasn't bad but it had a seriously troubled development history where one director was removed from the project and Tanimura(who also co-directed DkS3) stitched DkS2 together from disparate assets. What also didn't help is that they had a vision for the game they couldn't realize on the previous gen with the light/dark mechanic which also shows the serious downgrade in the final product. Just look at the early build with the dragon skeleton. It's awesome. It's 2013 footage but it still looks pretty good.Instead we got Bloodborne, which by most accounts could be considered a fair or at least understandable compromise. However it also reveals why B teams shouldn’t really be a “thing” to helm a project completely. Backup efforts at most.
I for one would have much preferred FROM to outright delay either game until Miyazaki could give them both the attention they deserved, but the money gods ultimately wouldn’t have that.
I wonder what the circumstances were involving the original director being removed, if it wasn’t simply Miyazaki leaving to work on Bloodborne.I think it's good if a studio doesn't hinge on one person. You have to give other people a chance to grow as creator. On it's own merits DkS2 wasn't bad but it had a seriously troubled development history where one director was removed from the project and Tanimura(who also co-directed DkS3) stitched DkS2 together from disparate assets. What also didn't help is that they had a vision for the game they couldn't realize on the previous gen with the light/dark mechanic which also shows the serious downgrade in the final product. Just look at the early build with the dragon skeleton. It's awesome. It's 2013 footage but it still looks pretty good.
With Miyazaki no longer interested in making another Dark Souls game I would definitely look forward to one directed by Tanimura instead. DkS3 co-directed, DkS2 early build and the way he salvaged DkS2 shows he has some pretty good ideas. Still hoping for a Dark Souls game entirely in Londor, a huge city with nothing but hollows set entirely in the Age of Dark.
From what I recall in the DkS2 design works interview with Tanimura it was because the designs weren't 'Dark Souls' enough. That original director, Tomohiro Shibuya, apparently also didn't work for From Software anymore afterwards. I guess it just wasn't the right fit.I wonder what the circumstances were involving the original director being removed, if it wasn’t simply Miyazaki leaving to work on Bloodborne.
That bit with the cyclops busting out of jail sure beats just hanging around in a tutorial forest. Maybe for PS6 they’ll remake DS2 in the original vision, if Demon’s Souls Remake does well.
If you have PS2/PS3 you can try the armored franchise if you want more from soft and you like the idea of a giant mech game.I just finished Sekiro. And for the first time in a while, I have no idea where to go next. Before, I could just pick up the next game by Fromsoft, other than the jaunt I took into Tsushima back in August, but now I'm at a loss.
What did you think. I'd like to hear your take on the game compared to other FROM games and/or on it's own.I just finished Sekiro. And for the first time in a while, I have no idea where to go next. Before, I could just pick up the next game by Fromsoft, other than the jaunt I took into Tsushima back in August, but now I'm at a loss.
Honestly, I'd say that it's different in more ways than it's similar to compare it to the others that closely, though I will note that the level design and the way the areas fit together felt the best since the first game, since that's the way it's most similar. The rest is mainly contrasts: expanded movement options make moving through those levels feel so much better just on its own, the combat mechanics make the most of a single fighting style rather than offering near-limitless build variety, the extra lives system makes the game feel a little less punishing while still requiting a lot of skill and focus to progress, and the story has a clear and approachable outer layer with still plenty of hidden lore to seek out like Kingfisher.What did you think. I'd like to hear your take on the game compared to other FROM games and/or on it's own.
Which ending did you go for? If you replay the game and go for a different ending you will get a couple of different endgame bosses. Also you finally have access to hard mode. (people said this game didn't have easy mode...little did they know they were playing on easy mode all along! XD)I just finished Sekiro. And for the first time in a while, I have no idea where to go next. Before, I could just pick up the next game by Fromsoft, other than the jaunt I took into Tsushima back in August, but now I'm at a loss.
I felt much the same and would rate it somewhere close to DS1 in terms of overall quality(BloodBourne is better then both IMHO). And as Dreiko brings up that there are some different bosses and such. What ending did you end up getting? One of them requires fighting at least one extra boss(arguably the hardest ending to achieve, both due to that boss or the prereqs). Though I have a noted dislike for SSI and honestly would be fine never trying to beat him again.Honestly, I'd say that it's different in more ways than it's similar to compare it to the others that closely, though I will note that the level design and the way the areas fit together felt the best since the first game, since that's the way it's most similar. The rest is mainly contrasts: expanded movement options make moving through those levels feel so much better just on its own, the combat mechanics make the most of a single fighting style rather than offering near-limitless build variety, the extra lives system makes the game feel a little less punishing while still requiting a lot of skill and focus to progress, and the story has a clear and approachable outer layer with still plenty of hidden lore to seek out like Kingfisher.
Honestly, the only reason I wouldn't say it's the best Dark Souls game is because it feels totally different to them in the moment-to-moment gameplay, but it's definitely an excellent action game. And, honestly, one that like the first Dark Souls, I'd recommend especially to people who don't think they're good enough to beat it. You'd be surprised.
Decided to try and do all 13 bosses, managed that, then settled on Purification because I didn't want to have to redo the optional boss for that ending.Which ending did you go for? If you replay the game and go for a different ending you will get a couple of different endgame bosses. Also you finally have access to hard mode. (people said this game didn't have easy mode...little did they know they were playing on easy mode all along! XD)
I ended up during Return, which isn't that much harder then purification. On the plus side, you get to kill that fucking SNEK(Or one of them anyway. There's either two or they the "kill" encounter is supposed to be done second and they didn't code for it).Decided to try and do all 13 bosses, managed that, then settled on Purification because I didn't want to have to redo the optional boss for that ending.