I don't even know how to begin writing about Dark Souls II. The game seems to me to be categorically a mess, with moments of brilliance and excitement mixed among moments of frustrating design much worse than anything in the original Dark Souls.
I will say that my average enjoyment for the game was quite a bit higher than the score I'm giving it indicates, but the low-points are so low that I struggle to imagine playing through the game again from the beginning. Heidi's Tower of Flame, Harvest Valley, Earthen Peak, Black Gulch, Shrine of Amana, the Giant memories, Frigid Outskirts, and a significant portion of Brume Tower were all just broadly not enjoyable or even very frustrating. Dark Souls 2 logic also serves as a big annoyance throughout (how to unlock Huntsman's Copse, burning down the windmill that is made of metal at the point where you light it aflame, how to unlock Castle Drangleic's front doors, and everything to do with unlocking the final boss, all required some amount of direction to be given to me in a way I never struggled with in the first game).
None of this is helped by Dark Souls 2's attitude towards worldbuilding. The original Dark Souls is certainly not without its faults (largely contained within the Lord Souls content thankfully), but it builds up a lot of forgiveness from me because the world is so immersive, so genuinely exciting to see the ways it all starts to link together both in a physical sense and a lore and worldbuilding sense. The world of Dark Souls 2 is more chaotic, with an active and intentional disregard for physical reality as it seeks to show a world in disarray, space contorting in the same way that time did in the first game. I don't outright dislike this, and in fact think it's really cool that Dark Souls 2 decided to take things in a very different direction, but the reduced sense of immersion that comes with this makes the low-points a lot harder to shrug off for me.
Of note, Dark Souls 2 alters a bunch of systems and mechanics from the first game. I'm totally fine with this in the abstract, each game exists as its own entity and doesn't really owe anything to what came before it, but some of these changes did land very poorly with me. Ever-reducing health total that needs to be undone with the usage of human effigies, enemies permanently de-spawning from the world after you've killed them a certain number of times, the adaptability stat, and a greater emphasis on resource management and finite supplies, are all extremely well-meaning changes that make sense but feel kind of awful in practice. I do think people often ignore the things Dark Souls 2 does right though; jump attacks are much better than they used to be, back-stabbing and endurance are both thankfully nerfed, there's a greater emphasis on making two-handed play appealing and de-emphasis on shields and blocking, dual-wielding weapons and power stance are awesome additions, you're given a better level of control over the rpg-aspects of your character, and every single change made to how estus functions (other than it being tied to your adaptability stat, which is clearly bad) was great! People talk about the systems and design in DS2 as if they're a strict downgrade, but I think of it more as a side-step; handling some things worse, but also some things quite a bit better.
And gosh the highlights here are so good. Eleum Loyce ranks up there with the very best content in the original Dark Souls. No-man's Wharf was another big highlight, though there are a few different places that are going to linger with me. Dark Souls 2 also just has a great eye for memorable set-pieces; my personal favourite was the ogre chasing you in Aldia's Keep, it clumsily releasing other creatures from their cages one-by-one as you dash away down the hallway.
I might never return to this game because of its low-points, but its high-points are going to stick with me much longer than for any other game I could say that for. Dark Souls 2 is such a mess, but also such a fascinating mess.
I will say that my average enjoyment for the game was quite a bit higher than the score I'm giving it indicates, but the low-points are so low that I struggle to imagine playing through the game again from the beginning. Heidi's Tower of Flame, Harvest Valley, Earthen Peak, Black Gulch, Shrine of Amana, the Giant memories, Frigid Outskirts, and a significant portion of Brume Tower were all just broadly not enjoyable or even very frustrating. Dark Souls 2 logic also serves as a big annoyance throughout (how to unlock Huntsman's Copse, burning down the windmill that is made of metal at the point where you light it aflame, how to unlock Castle Drangleic's front doors, and everything to do with unlocking the final boss, all required some amount of direction to be given to me in a way I never struggled with in the first game).
None of this is helped by Dark Souls 2's attitude towards worldbuilding. The original Dark Souls is certainly not without its faults (largely contained within the Lord Souls content thankfully), but it builds up a lot of forgiveness from me because the world is so immersive, so genuinely exciting to see the ways it all starts to link together both in a physical sense and a lore and worldbuilding sense. The world of Dark Souls 2 is more chaotic, with an active and intentional disregard for physical reality as it seeks to show a world in disarray, space contorting in the same way that time did in the first game. I don't outright dislike this, and in fact think it's really cool that Dark Souls 2 decided to take things in a very different direction, but the reduced sense of immersion that comes with this makes the low-points a lot harder to shrug off for me.
Of note, Dark Souls 2 alters a bunch of systems and mechanics from the first game. I'm totally fine with this in the abstract, each game exists as its own entity and doesn't really owe anything to what came before it, but some of these changes did land very poorly with me. Ever-reducing health total that needs to be undone with the usage of human effigies, enemies permanently de-spawning from the world after you've killed them a certain number of times, the adaptability stat, and a greater emphasis on resource management and finite supplies, are all extremely well-meaning changes that make sense but feel kind of awful in practice. I do think people often ignore the things Dark Souls 2 does right though; jump attacks are much better than they used to be, back-stabbing and endurance are both thankfully nerfed, there's a greater emphasis on making two-handed play appealing and de-emphasis on shields and blocking, dual-wielding weapons and power stance are awesome additions, you're given a better level of control over the rpg-aspects of your character, and every single change made to how estus functions (other than it being tied to your adaptability stat, which is clearly bad) was great! People talk about the systems and design in DS2 as if they're a strict downgrade, but I think of it more as a side-step; handling some things worse, but also some things quite a bit better.
And gosh the highlights here are so good. Eleum Loyce ranks up there with the very best content in the original Dark Souls. No-man's Wharf was another big highlight, though there are a few different places that are going to linger with me. Dark Souls 2 also just has a great eye for memorable set-pieces; my personal favourite was the ogre chasing you in Aldia's Keep, it clumsily releasing other creatures from their cages one-by-one as you dash away down the hallway.
I might never return to this game because of its low-points, but its high-points are going to stick with me much longer than for any other game I could say that for. Dark Souls 2 is such a mess, but also such a fascinating mess.
6 Comments
Oh interesting, that is good to know! I had heard the enemy placements in Scholar were made intentionally harder and it's possible that's what leads to the feeling that this game is at times kind of cheap in its difficulty in a slightly cynical way that the original Dark Souls definitely wasn't. I could definitely imagine the original enemy placements improving things a fair amount, and am curious to see them.
That said my problems with the sections I dislike of Scholar spread far beyond just enemy placements so I'm still a bit reticent to try the original Dark Souls II, especially as it's such a huge time investment to complete.
That said my problems with the sections I dislike of Scholar spread far beyond just enemy placements so I'm still a bit reticent to try the original Dark Souls II, especially as it's such a huge time investment to complete.
The enemy shuffle in scholar is very strange, but I think that feeling of a cynical view of difficulty like you mention is still very much present in the original. I doubt it would change your view on the game at all, the only thing I think is a notable difference is that enemies fit the areas a bit better in the original.
Late to the party here, but just to give my perspective on the Scholar changes, I think they're for the better. Enemy placement is a give-and-take, with some being for the better and some for the worse. However, item placement is a huge improvement. For one, the DLC keys are actually in the game instead of just being added to your inventory, which I think makes for a more cohesive experience. The Dull Ember was originally acquired in the Iron Keep, meaning that the player basically had to luck into choosing the right path in order to infuse weapons reasonably early into the game. It's new placement a lot better, and allows infusing early. Sublime Bone Dust was originally just found wherever. One of the first enemies in Heide's Tower has one for some reason! Scholar puts them in chests guarded by the royal guards from Dranglaic Castle, which implies that Vendrick wanted them hidden and protected. This makes sense given their significance, and is a nice bit of lore you can infer. It also foreshadows Dranglaic Castle, which gives the world a bit of consistency it is otherwise severely lacking in.
I appreciate you sharing these details on the differences between the two versions! It seems unlikely I play the original version, and certainly not anytime soon, so gaining some additional context on some of the things Scholar actually changed for the better is nice :)
No problem! I should mention that the DLC areas themselves are completely unchanged, likely as they were directed by Yui Tanimura, the guy who oversaw Scholar. I believe he took over directing duties for DSII from Tomohiro Shibuya pretty late in development, so I speculate that Scholar was Tanimura's attempt at remixing the original DSII into something he has more authorship over. While I think the idea of releasing a remix of a game is shady as a business practice, the context of DSII's directorial transition does provide some justification for the release on an artistic front.
nex3
2 years ago