There was nothing cheap about its predecessor though. You could easily avoid any and all ambushes and traps by taking things slow and being careful. And Capra was annoying, but there were strategies that worked (a lot) and you could easily learn how to avoid the dogs when you entered then you're fine. People who think Souls was "cheap" are seriously in a need of "get good, son"Aiddon said:It does seem to ease people into the mechanics far easier. Plus there are no controller-throwingly-frustrating early game parts; there's nothing ANYWHERE near as irritating as the Capra Demon (the FOURTH boss of Dark Souls), and the gimmicks for areas have been brought down to a minimum. All in all, it feels WAY less cheap than its predecessor.Under_your_bed said:Hey, he said that Souls 2 was "easier for the noobs". As a noob to the Souls series, is it a good idea to do 2 first to get the hang of it and then do one? Any veterans got anything to say?
Been saying this for a week now. Next Souls game should have Miyazaki and the others that were involved in DkS1 and DeS back in charge and let the current directors be in charge of the combat system.The Dead Singer said:Also, one thing I thought Yahtzee didn't give enough credit to was how the mechanics for some of the bosses worked - Like, for example, during the Harvest Valley there's this serpent chick that you have to fight on a pool full poison (Which is mass serial killer murderous compared to how it was in Dark Souls 1), but if you find her windmill you can born it down so that the pool is emptied and the fight becomes vastly easier - It rewards the player more for further exploration, not simply with some potentially overpowered equipment.
It's true though, a lot of ideas are quite blatantly recicled (Though some of them may or may not be done for the sake of adding more complexity to the lore - See Ornstein), and definitely isn't as memorable of an experience as DS1 in terms of world design (I can't really remember the name of the any of the sections inf Dks2, where as I remember almost all sections from Dks1 pretty clearly), though that maybe because the world is now devided into tons of little pieces as opposed to huge areas with random save points here and there.
On the whole though, I'd say the game is a more than worthy sequel - I definitely think it would've been stronger with the original director still on the helm, and I cross my fingers for him to return, but for the most part the game has imrpoved in terms of mechanics and some of the secrets in it are some of the most clever things this series has ever done. Not sure which I prefer though... probably Dks1, but meh, why choose.
Also, I guess Yahtzee forgot about what happened in Demon's Souls when it came to the health bar thing... This game is pretty mercyful in comparison to that. In fact, this almost feels like a 50/50 combo between Dks1 and Demon's Souls, some of the stuff that was lost in translation from Demon's Souls to Dks1 are now back here (That lava dragon thing was in Demon's Souls as well, in fact, though it was a different one and it was larger - Plus, it's a bit more linear, just like Demon's Souls) - So that may be why Yahtzee wasn't all too happy with them.
Yeah, well I'm buying the 'real' version and modding those cute dogs into it. Every time I die a little puppy will pop out and say "booo".Evonisia said:The 'real' version? So a shitty PC port which will require modders to fix just like last time? Ok then, if you hate the PlayStation 3 that much.
But this still convinces me that Dark Souls 2 will be worth a try once I've finally gotten back into Dark Souls 1 and completed it. Those dogs saying "yay" and "boo" were simply too adorable to not consider getting the game, despite the fact that they won't be in the game.
Most fans of the souls series (including myself) enjoy the games because they harken back to older video games who treated you like a adult and forces you to learn patience and hon your reflexes.Silentpony said:I will never understand the cult that has started in the wake of these games. I played the first one and it was awful. Spent 6 hours getting absolutely nothing done. I think I found one campfire(but don't quote me because its such a miserably designed game it was hard to tell one spot from another)
Seriously guys, why is a game like this that waste your time so much considered the be-all, end-all of games but Final Fantasy 13, where you run down a hallway for 30 hours, is considered a horrendous insult to gaming?
As far as I can tell the only difference between those two time sinks are the graphics and FF13 at least wants you to play it. Dark Souls made it clear it didn't want to be played and I couldn't oblige it fast enough!
Haven't played DS2 but everyone says its just like DS1, so I'm going to do it a huge favor and just not buy it. Why waste both our times when neither of us are committed to having a good gaming experience?
That, and also what silent said about taking 6 hours to do anything - The game can be beating in its entirity in one, or maybe even less than that. So it had nothing to do with the game being slow or unfriendly, you just weren't good enough in it - And no, I'm not saying you should learn to beat it in one hour like speed runners, but if people can beat it in such a short amount of time, surely, someone has to be a little slow.remmus said:Most fans of the souls series (including myself) enjoy the games because they harken back to older video games who treated you like a adult and forces you to learn patience and hon your reflexes.Silentpony said:I will never understand the cult that has started in the wake of these games. I played the first one and it was awful. Spent 6 hours getting absolutely nothing done. I think I found one campfire(but don't quote me because its such a miserably designed game it was hard to tell one spot from another)
Seriously guys, why is a game like this that waste your time so much considered the be-all, end-all of games but Final Fantasy 13, where you run down a hallway for 30 hours, is considered a horrendous insult to gaming?
As far as I can tell the only difference between those two time sinks are the graphics and FF13 at least wants you to play it. Dark Souls made it clear it didn't want to be played and I couldn't oblige it fast enough!
Haven't played DS2 but everyone says its just like DS1, so I'm going to do it a huge favor and just not buy it. Why waste both our times when neither of us are committed to having a good gaming experience?
And consequently the reason most people (again including myself) dont´enjoy FF13 is because it´s seen as a front figure for the pampering, curling parent style way players are treated as kids, to be spoiled and pampered.
Basicly Souls forces you to work for that feeling of being awesome, FF13 just hands it to you on a silver plater.
There are no "mandates" for how to play a game on PC. There should ALWAYS be the option to use mouse and keyboard, and it should not be a gimped option. I shouldn't be forced to buy a gadget just in order to play a game. This isn't a console, it's a PC. If I wanted to play it on a console, I would play it on a console. If it is released for the PC, THEN I EXPECT IT TO WORK FOR A PC. I don't expect having to buy specialized hardware, and if I have to, it should be clearly marked before I purchase it.Vicioussama said:oh boo hoo, a game genre that plays better on a gamepad requiring a gamepad... I thought other PC gamers were used to having peripherals for their gaming? I know I am. You don't play a Flight Sim with a mouse and keyboard. You play it with a joystick. You play some games like this with a gamepad. What's the big deal?Realitycrash said:I know that no-one can possibly answer this, but do you think the PC-port controls will be as horribly butchered (i.e REQUIRING A FUCKING CONTROLER) as the Dark Souls port was? Because I can't go through that again. I want to be able to map my own controls. I want a responsive camera and a a character that doesn't move like a stick-figure, and I want to be able to use my mouse and keyboard.
.
Bah, Basilisks are not really an issue even without good Curse resist gear. Just gotta be mindful of your footing.Trishbot said:I am currently waist-deep in Dark Souls 1, around level 36 and doing everything I can to procrastinate going into the Depths and bumping into those Curse-spewing Basilisks.
It's a great game, but after HOURS, I'm about ready for the game to go "you want us to cut you some slack? Fine. Fine. Here's SOME slack. Not much. A little. It's all you get".
Seeing as most people disagree you just come off as trying to brag.Vicioussama said:It's so sad how easy Dark Souls 2 is... and how they casualized the series :|
Yeah i guess the truth hurts when you have to wait another month for a shitty and poorly optimized PC port with crappy mouse and keyboard controls, meanwhile the real Souls community have already finished the game that was originally designed for consoles, not PC. Truth hurts.Deathfish15 said:Love the mention of "the real version", as if to say that consoles are nothing more than bad versions of games that are clearly better on PC. Truth hurts.
Seeing as the PC version isn't out yet it's too early to say if the port will be poor. Not to mention that if any of you saying this had followed ANY of the news about DS2, the you would know that its a PC game being ported to consoles. The PC version was the lead version of the game, and From is taking the extra month to make sure that they didn't screw up.prats93 said:Yeah i guess the truth hurts when you have to wait another month for a shitty and poorly optimized PC port with crappy mouse and keyboard controls, meanwhile the real Souls community have already finished the game that was originally designed for consoles, not PC. Truth hurts.Deathfish15 said:Love the mention of "the real version", as if to say that consoles are nothing more than bad versions of games that are clearly better on PC. Truth hurts.