Was it that bad?

"bad pve, good pvp" is the most overused observation ever for ds2, but it's true. i adored the game when it had an active pvp community. now that it's quieted down, though, there's not quite as much to it.

Personally, I liked it but it's got problems like the other games, although this one has a lot more.
SotFS can suck my ass, tho.

1>BB>S>3>2

I'd say Sekiro is too different to be included but if I had to I'd say:

BB>1>3>S>2>DS>SotFS

Attached: d90gqf6-0a14742a-bd44-4e05-822c-353dc6f0cc0f.png (1000x714, 588K)

It's not THAT bad, but it's nowhere close the others in the series.
Not that it matters, it's impossible to discuss this game around here without someone getting autistically butthurt.

is it necessary to make this thread every hour of every day? do you discord trannies never sleep?

Yes, it included some nice QOL changes but screwed up almost everything actually important. I cannot fucking stand the movement, for instance.

I'm playing this for the first time, is the only souls game i never played, can you guys tell me why it's so hated?

Attached: nigga.jpg (700x711, 126K)

Dark Souls 2

Attached: 1562179173759.jpg (1280x720, 104K)

i was my favourite, has 2 maxed out characters both on ng 23+, made some sl120 for pvp but every one just complained about halberd, shield and mace.

If all of the bosses levels after Lost Sinner were to be cut, alongside all of the areas after Vendrick, and replaced by the DLC, I'd be eager to replay this game at least once a year. That's how good I think the DLC setting and level design is (as someone who played it for the first time a month ago and has always hated DS2).
I still think the movement, gamefeel, how the game controls or however you may call it is botched and that the art-style/graphics are the weakest of the whole franchise.

Attached: 450_1000.jpg (450x253, 28K)

All of them are garbage.

1>DS>BB>3>2
3 was ruined for me recently when I learned of all the cut/remixed content to the story.

I hadn't thought of that before, but I agree.
I played through SotFS about a year ago to see what was different about it (not much iirc), but was just burnt out by the time I got half way through the DLC because of all the mediocre main content.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things it's an okay game and worth a playthrough. It's just nowhere near as good as its predecessors. I'd still tell anyone who hasn't played it to give it a shot. Yes, the graphics are dogshit and the world design looks bland in all but like 3 areas and the controls/animations are janky as fuck, and the level layouts feel like the devs were more often just trying to frustrate and cockblock the player rather than making something fun, but even with all those problems, it's still okay.

I agree with that. The DLCs are actually really good (although the graphical problems are still there, although I thought the sunken city areas looked pretty cool even so). It's just a shame you have to slog through so much of the main game to get to them.

And also fuck SOTFS. It was supposed to fix the problems of vanilla. Instead I got romhack-tier enemy placement that was somehow even worse than in vanilla, a fucking ring instead of actually fixing soul memory, still no full eye orbs, an they couldn't even reinclude the original better lighting from the beta build.

Isn't there literally a snowfield where you can't see fuck all and get ganked by unicorns?

Actually, after going looking for the DS3 cut content article to remind myself, are FromSoftware a bunch of hacks?
None of the Dark Souls games are complete, with 2 and 3 not even having a consistent story, let alone a good one.
I can't recall any issues with Bloodborne though; I'm pretty sure most would agree that's complete.
Not interested in Sekiro, but I haven't heard any completeness issues with either.

It's my least favourite in the series but it's not as bad as most people say

1>BB=3>Demon>2
Sekiro is too different to compare

I have to assume the problem lies with Bamco

No. It's the worst souls game but it's still a great game overall

It was worse.

>I still think the movement, gamefeel, how the game controls or however you may call it is botched
I think 2 perfected combat pacing in terms of stamina regen rate, move speed, animation vulnerability, etc. but it's like they outsourced most of the animations to some third-world country. The sword swings have a weird, floaty feel to them because it just looks like they just slowed down the animation to accommodate the speed of gameplay they were aiming for instead of tweaking the animations to make them heavier. There's also a really awkward disconnect between the walk animation and your actual move speed that makes it look like you're walking on ice.
As much as I love DS2 it's painfully obvious that it was rushed to release, especially in the animation department.

fpbp

Yeah, those things combined make DaS2 feel like I'm playing with beer goggles and my character is trudging through mud and hitting enemies with a pool noodle rather than a sword. It's just so unsatisfying, especially compared to the tight responsive "punchy" feeling of movement and combat in all the other games in the series.

And then the problem of the animations is compounded by adaptability, because the animations don't reflect your i-frames in the same way that you get different animations in the other games to signify different i-frame windows.

Bloodborne felt too short without the DLC
The last few levels(yaharghul, nightmare frontier, and nightmare of mensis) were also a noticeable drop in quality

Best fashion and weapon variety in the series

>best fashion
no because the shitty graphics/lighting make it look like a PS2 game and all the "metallic" pieces end up looking like they're made of plastic

1 > BB > Sekiro > 2 > > 3

Except The Witcher is certainly not a "game of its type"

Yes because what we were promised was looking so much better than what actually came out.

youtube.com/watch?v=z_JFDPCtXFY
youtube.com/watch?v=3Qj2BkF7jh4

Holy shit it was. It looks and plays like conplete ASS. Its enough that the poor graphics and atmosphere fail to pull you into its world but the movement is this strange combination of clunky and floaty. The game is an insult really, and i fucking love FROM.

Attached: 1451975899494.jpg (1600x842, 425K)

This. Most of its faults would have been fine if the game at least played well. I got 1 play through out of it and now i cant get passed the giant forrest or whatever. The game is just painful to play, and literally makes me nauseas.

Switch 2 and 3 and we good. 3 was lackluster for sure but at least it felt good to play.

I hate DaS2, but i will admit I had tons of fun pvping at the bell tower. I always got a kick out of summoning that npc there when I got invaded.

>was it that bad?
No.
But it's seriously a case of "WTF were they thinking" because a sequel to Dark Souls should have been the easiest fucking layup of a sequel since Mega Man 3. Instead they fucked with the systems, world, and storytelling style, changing shit that didn't need changing instead of just doing Dark Souls again except this time with a different interconnected world and different special/boss-soul weapons.

Because it doesn't represent what makes the series good. It feels like a cheap fan-made version of the series. I don't hate the game, I just think its the black sheep of the series. The PvP is the best thing about the game though, along with fashion souls and build variety. As for world building, lore, bosses and characters, it's quite poor in that regard compared to the other games.

Also Demon's Souls had better graphics and lighting than Ds2 before Scholar of the First Sin launched. Look at e3 footage for Ds2 and you'll see how much it was changed.