Dark Souls II

It's on sale on steam.

finished with dark souls 3 and I skipped this because everyone said it was shit. Is it worth buying? Is the multiplayer any good? Or should I play the pirate copy I already have?

Also if I do buy it does anyone want to team up for some jolly cooperation?

have some tangentially related images

...

...

...

It is genuinely bad and you will regret playing it.

I know I did and I didn't even finish it. Too many dumb fucking decisions that just pile up into one heap of a shit game.

If you like shit yes. Just know that there are countless games that are better and you could spend your money on other than DSII.

That good hey?

ah… oh well. back to Holla Forums then…

I got 2 hours shy of 200 hours on the PC port of DaS, on top of 4 console playthroughs and 145 hours on the PC version of DaS3, and I couldn't get past Belltower in DaS 2 no matter the version I played. Just skip it.

Scholar of the first sin isn't a BAD game, it's just not as good as the first dark souls so autistic retards sperg out like morons.

you know how it is with Holla Forums.

Why the fuck would you pay for it if you already a pirated copy?
It's shit, don't buy it. Hell, I'd tell you to avoid it altogether, but whatever.

specifics

the controls are tighter and more responsive than one, but the level design isn't as good.

graphics got an improvement, but difficulty went from placement of enemies to overpowered dudes in armor rushing you in groups.
just run pyromancer or magic I guess.

long story short, if you like dark souls, and are willing to approach two as an independent game, you will probably have fun.

If you spend the entire time looking for faults to be a retard, and comparing it do DeS and DS1 non-stop, you'll likely be disappointed.

The controls are shit, parrying got all kinds of fucked
Graphics are shit and more bland, the game lacks proper art direction

user, I'm in the same boat as you for the most part. I loved DS1 to death, played DS3 recently and got burnt out on it, so I picked up DS2 on sale. I played it before when it first came out on PS3 and never finished it because I got bored. I figured I would buy this on PC and play through the DLC.

I've put forty five minutes into it and realized why I never finished it. Do not buy it user, nearly every single thing is a step down from DS1 or a longing "what could have been" moment when you realize how much potential it could have had in the hands of competent people.

The worst thing is that not even the lore is that salvageable. Most of it is new shit that doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things. There's a few bits of fanservice here and there (LOL PRAISE THE SUN UPVOTE ME BROS) but that's really it. With DS3 out with the way it is, DS2 has been rendered pretty much irrelevant.

tl;dr
Skip it. Go back to DS1 and PvP or do cheat engine playthroughs with different stuff that would make it more interesting or funny. Unfortunately, we're never going to get a true successor to DS1, the flaws in PvP in DS3 put that idea to rest.

I'll save you the indecision.
8a5cd3586827043f3b720ec209cde72663230e15

I think you're just trying to find faults, the controls are definitely more responsive than one in terms of movement and feedback.

I never parried in one anyway, so maybe I didn't notice it in two.

DkS2 killed my interest in Dks

2 is better than 3 but worse than 1.

3 fucked up some stuff but overall its still a better game than 2.

Or the faults are so glaring they jump out at you. I'm not even a purist like some others and thought the game was lacking. There was little incentive to explore, the characters less charming or alive, the whole game felt bland as fuck on it's own let alone as part of the series.

Yes, DaS 2 is a good game. Get it if you even remotely like DeS, Das 1, or DaS 3.

The online isn't as active as it used to be, but even my past playthrough from before the summer sale I had plenty of invasions and co-op, ESPECIALLY at low levels.

can't argue with that, compared to the series it is lackluster.

on it's own it's not a bad game, though.

That depends on your tastes then. It was very bland and rather soulless. The only thing I really appreciated was the optimization and how well it ran on my computer. Beyond that I only finished it to see what the pay-off would be for the end. I will also give them credit for at least being consistent with their own theme despite the mood of the story/world being all over the place and the predictable level design.

dark souls 2 was released in 2014.
feel free to compare it to other games released that year.

i'm sure that call of duty and castlevania:lords of shadow two will stack up, yeah?

Call of Duty I'm sure is better than dog shit but that doesn't make it good. The funny thing with DaS 2 is that at the time I was primed to like it. I pirated, it ran well on my computer (unlike the first one), and I didn't have any real attachment to the series. They could have tossed in anime lolis in the game and I wouldn't have been put off by it. Yet, I found myself irritated by the predictability of the game and other feature I mentioned before. If someone called the game bad I would not fault them. I'd have a harder time siding with someone calling the game good. Personally, I don't want to say the game is terrible simply because it ran well on my computer but if I were used to that sort of thing I probably would.

personally I thought the game was pretty good. I guess it's all a matter of opinion.

The only part I didn't like was the DLC where they figured difficulty meant "now it's a dozen guys in a locked room!"

Dark souls 3 is like dark souls 2 done right. Das2 and 3 don't feel like sequels to the original dark souls, which very clearly feels like a logical growth and exploration of demons souls.

Dark souls 3 is pretty bad, but at least its playable, not half as good as the original but its ok in the end.

If you actually like these kinds of games play from softwares other titles like otogi and kings field. Dark souls, demons souls and bloodborne.

There are always assholes who wanna lie to OP.

What?

I disagree completely. In fact, only when taking DeS and DaS1 into consideration should someone think about playing it. Purely to see how it's not only a bad Souls game, but a bad game in general.

No, I'm not repeating them "damp memes" I've seen on the interwebs. I gave both vanilla and scholar ten hours each before I just couldn't fucking stand them anymore. Whoever directed DaS2 had no fucking clue what they were doing.

...

I on't know Castlevania very well

does that mean good experiences?

DS3 is beautiful and fun game with refined mechanics and some quality of the life additions.
It however lack difficulty, coherency and the charm of the original.
DS2 is plain shit with little cool innovations there and there, that are dropped in DS3.

2 has the best combat and exploration in the series.
Everything else is kinda shit but those are two of the more important portions of the gameplay.

"Best combat" is the broad term. Yes your dude can do a lot of shit, much more than in both DS1 and 3 combined, but what's the point if enemies rotate like on turning plates, have WIDLY inaccurate hitboxes, and half of your maneuvers straight up don't work? To PvP?
The only viable PvP area is narrow as shit bridge in eye-melting nausea-inducing area.

Yes core combat engine is good but it is wasted on shit enemies.

Really? Most of the areas are either rooms and corridors or huge plain areas with pitfalls and armies of enemies. It's really, really bad.
I would say that overall world design is best in DS1, while individual areas are better in DS3.

I would say that DS3 felt like one huge stand-alone DLC for DS1, while DS2 was separate, mostly inferior game.

What do you mean DS3 lacks difficulty? It is easily the hardest of the 4 Souls games. How anyone can think otherwise is baffling.

haha, no.

...

Well I can't be objective, since I completed DS1 and 2 before it, so it felt easy.
Maybe if I started with it and then went back to DS1 it would be another way around.

Also difficulty is perceived differently by people. Some deal more easily with environmental hazards, but struggle against enemies, while others absolutely destroy mobs, but constantly die to traps.

So yeah, I'm sharing personal experience, I'm not pretending to be objective here. So when people say that they like DS2 the most, there might be a small, faint chance, that they aren't bullshitting.

I almost simply posted a snug anime picture but I realized I went into DS3 tempered by Bloodborne. Obviously I can imagine the leap from the slower pace of the older games to DS3 would create a bigger difficulty for people with not great reflexes.

Fuck it smug animu girl anyway.

DS3's 'difficulty' was just spamming dogs and other gank squads like no tomorrow.

DS3's entire dificulty was voided null by the fact that if you spammed dodge you'd be fucking invencible as long as you kept spamming, where in dark souls 1 you actually get punished by badly timed dodges.

Which is harder then? DS3 enemies/bosses are the most aggressive and fastest. Most of them seem to have infinite stamina, or at least really fast recovery. It's like 2 but even worse, except the tracking got toned down a bit and the hitboxes are better.


I've played each game at release and think they have only gotten more challenging. I never understood the "your first Souls game is the hardest" meme. Sure, you get used to the mechanics and the usual design choices they make, but more things seem to get stacked against you with each new game.


I'm not saying it is good or anything, just that I think it is more of a challenge than the previous games.

I dunno about it being a meme.
I spent around 6 hours just learning how to get to Taurus with at least 2 estus and not to die to him.
I spent like two evening learning just how to solo super ornstein.
Nothing in DS2 or 3 took me that long. Hardest boss in DS3 was nameless king, and he was not anywhere near to super orney, even though he's supposed to be super ornstein 2.
I haven't played Demon's or Bloodborne though.

Chinese knock offs of LoL has more quality than LoL itself.

I might just be a faggot who can't git gud at fighting Nameless, but Ornstein is definitely easier than Nameless King for me.

I found nameless easier than Pontiff tbh.
The hardest part is noticing that the game doesn't allow for slow weapons and that rolling makes you ivencible if you keep spamming

Dark Souls 2 has decent PVP, better than 1 and unsure of 3. Vanilla areas are not that good. The DLC areas are actually quite good. Soul memory is the worst part of it.

...

...

As a high ranking member of the Holla Forums Hivemind, LLC, a subsidiary of Go Back to Reddit Industries, I can safely say that I didn't hate the game.

I meant that 2 has the best PvP mostly.
But, in general, 2 has the most viable playstyles and the most fun weapons.


I love the "Dark Souls 2 has shitty enemy placement" meme, especially since Scholar and 3 have come out. Not so shitty any more.

Beat Sulyvahn on my first try
My entire first run was with the great sword a.k.a. the Guts sword. Slow weapons may be shit for PvP due to no poise, but nearly everything PvE can be completed with a light armor+heavy weapon setup. I beat most bosses on my first try.

It isn't that good. Broken hitboxes, durability bug tied to framerate, very baffling world, really lame story and reason to do what you are doing. The biggest upside is the performance. A Japanese AAA game runs like a dream on PC, that is nice.

I didn't even finish DSII. I did endure it to the final boss but just dropped it there. I also don't understand why the DLC gets a lot of love. Its just squads of damage sponges.

I don't know how anyone can think DS3 is harder than the others. I haven't played it myself yet but from what I have seen it looks easy as fuck compared to previous games, especially BB.

dark souls 2 is only good for the PvP and the DLC really, but if its cheap you may as well give it a play

a lot of us skipped bloodborne for one reason or another, so were coming at it with only dark souls 1 and 2 for experience, thus making us have to adapt to the massively different style of play it encouraged.


try him at sl40 with a thrust weapon, hes fucking monstrous like that


in my opinion they made dark souls 3 too fast, too frantic.

Isn't it funny how DS2 is now somehow considered "good" due to the sheer existence of DS3 and the inevitable comparison between the two?

dark souls 2 was a decent game for PvP, and not an entirely awful game for PvE

in all honesty the PvP is more fair and varied in 2 than it is in 3

Unless you meant as like a "greatest hits" version, then sure. But by no means is DSIII the best Dark Souls, fuck no.

It's not for everyone. But I recently started playing it as well, and I'm genuinely enjoying it. I don't really care for anything other than the single player experience, but I hear the PVP is great.

Unfortunately I can't play with you since I have it for PS4.

And there are always faggots like you who want to jump on the DaS 2 hate bandwagon.

Kill yourself, faggot.

PvP was great, everything else not so much. The sheer amount of builds you could do were also nice

The Souls community is split between two very big demographics, the PvE and PvP group. Dark Souls 2 is the best game for those that love PvP which is why you get the ass kissing from some anons here. When it comes to PvE is when the game really falls apart. It's still a great game compared to other games out there and I would choose that over the majority of AAA games but as a PvE Souls game it's a disaster. Demon Souls and Dark Souls set the bar so high that a sequel that's above average is just going to look bad.