Why is DS2 so controversial

>equal amount
It's a vocal minority of contrarians on Yea Forums who claim to like it. By and large the consensus is that it's the worst Souls.

The game looks like cat vomit, get over it you tomb trannies

Feels like shit to play. I’m sure ds1 is slower but ds2 feels like I’m talking through mud

Look i'm an expert, and it's easily the best in the franchise, you disagree? That's fine but you're wrong. End of story, thanks for playing. Don't @ me on the way out of the thread, kid.

>"peak" as claimed by DS2 purists is a guy with two swords that swings them and then switches to one flaming sword and swings it
truly a masterpiece

it's honestly a pretty universal opinion that dark souls 2 isn't very good, the defenders have just gotten insanely loud about it over the last year or so. i'm pretty sure about half of it is genuinely just shitposting to stir soulsfags up into having retarded arguments nonstop.

It is not controversial
All the people that matter make sound arguments on why DS2 is weaker than the rest of the franchise.
Meanwhile the "other side" just responds with one-liners like "seethe" or "cope".
For something to be controversial you need to have discussion.

take this one, fren

Attached: 0%droprate.png (960x960, 1.02M)

Loud zoomers who even pepe is older than just like to complain at that stage of their life

Attached: 1649703449836.png (976x850, 502.79K)

better than Elden Ring unironically

It's the fact that it's uglier than any previous souls game while also playing worse and having shitty dungeons

well first of all, it's definitely not an equal amount of people shitting on it and saying it's a 10/10, das2 defenders are very vocal but it's pretty well agreed on as the worst or second worst souls game

i like a lot of the environments and they definitely tried some interesting stuff, but the main issue is that they made it annoying to play in order to make it difficult because they misunderstood why people liked the difficulty of das and des. anyone who played pre-patch shrine of amana knows what i'm talking about. that and the hit boxes on release in particular were complete dogshit, even for a souls game

>it's pretty well agreed on as the worst or second worst souls game
stopped reading there

i know this is bait, but that last picture really hits on something with how the devs know you can't jump or get over small ledges so they put retarded shit like "gotta do this whole section of a dungeon because your character can't lift themselves up a two foot ledge". that kind of disregard for world building shows exactly how the das2 team just wasn't up to snuff

cope

ok name 2 souls games you dislike more than das2 and why

kek, like clockwork

There's a difference in perspective of people who played it off the back of DeS and DaS, and people who view it in the whole of the franchise.
People can scream bed of chaos until their voice doesn't work anymore, but I'm convinced anyone arguing the base game isn't a flaming pile of shit are either trolling or possess a crippling learning disability. I have nothing but disdain for anyone who thought this was acceptable, regardless of its handful of good ideas. Dlc was breddy gud tho.

I dont see a problem with it. I'm playing for first time (beat ER, so replayed DS1 and picked up 2 and 3 that I never played) and up in earthen something with poison and shit. Took some time to get used to rolls being gimped, but once agility hit 100 it feels jus tlike dark souls 1. Combat has been a breeze. Can sidestep or just interrupt enemies eaisly. Enemy placement is a little annoying at times and you just start expecting (and typically right) enemies behind corners/off camera to gank you every other room. Bosses are a bit of a joke. Dont really do anything and they give you million allies to fight them with.

I was expecting basically unplayable trash. It's pretty much identical to dark souls 1 but with demons souls style zones you warp to (technically linked, but kinda half assed on that part, you wont wlak anywhere).

I don’t get it, so it looks like other things? And?

As much as people ignore flaws in Dark Souls 2, the opposite is true where people will pick apart Dark Souls 2 like rabid animals for MUH HITBOXES or MUH GANK SQUADS when they are in every souls game.

>DS2fags are frogniggers too
Not surprising.

Attached: file.png (768x582, 187.02K)

BRITISH ROBBER PEPE THE FROG IS THE GREATEST PHILOSOPHER OF ALL TIME

Attached: 1649025668901.png (624x434, 102.51K)

Fuck no, peak is Burnt Ivory King.

it didnt need to be made, Myazaki was working on Bloodborne then planning Elden Ring and Sekiro as the next evolution in the formula. Bandai just wanted a quick buck. Turns out it doesnt work that way with a from game, hence Myazaki had to make ds3 as a damage control (most of the cut stuff from ds3 ended up in elden ring, such as radagon's red wolf and the tree monsters)
Powerstancing and multiple item use are the only good things ds2 did, assuming you consider a guy finally managing to wipe his own ass an accomplishment.

It even happens in Elden Ring. There's a whole section of Morne Castle that can only be exited via fast travel because a ledge next to its site of grace is slightly higher than jumping height.

miyazaki made a worse game for damage control?

A lot of it's design was made to counter cheesy shit and exploits people used from DeS or DS1. Flipped people's expectations on how to play a souls game and made them git gud again and some people couldn't adapt. Plus the mechanics are less forgiving. More challenging enemy placement. Stamina management matters a lot. You can't attack and instantly turn whichever direction on a dime anymore. Locking on doesn't guarantee you're going to hit an enemy if you aren't looking at them. More build variety and depth means players can be playing the game wrong because they don't know any better. It's amazing people will not level vitality or endurance, play at 69.9% equip load and wonder why their roll is shit and why stamina depletes so quickly and regenerates so slowly. People make the game a lot harder on themselves than it actually is. I also wonder how many people's experience is just base DS2 on ps3, and not Scholar, which is a big improvement in every way. And then you have the people who are just overly emotional, biased, and wouldn't ever bring themselves to like a non miyazaki directed souls game on a personal level. It's very petty.

Attached: 1623265206991.jpg (1920x1080, 1.44M)

any shit is better than ds2's ADP, level and enemy design.

ER
DS3

LE ACTION LE SPECTACLE

fuck those heide knights. stronger than bosses.

nothing will beat Heide's tower of flame level.
The setting sun over the sea, the night sky lit by stars in the east, and the buildings half sunk.
Pure kino.

>A lot of it's design was made to counter cheesy shit and exploits people used from DeS or DS1.
Vanilla ds2 was broken with the lighting bolt exploit. You can just spam them from afar and beat any boss.
>Stamina management matters a lot.
it mattered in des and ds1 too. Difference is the games werent slowed down like ds2 or fast like ds3. it was in the middle.

It had some interesting ideas, but non of them panned out together,
>lack of variety in weaponry (powerstance aside)
>soul memory system that allowed for the most retarded twink invasions
>covenants were uninspired
>unimgainative enemy design to the point where they looked like premade assets from some shitty store (except in Heides Tower and the DLCs)
>same thing goes for most of the bosses
>level design was a mixed bag with some good ideas that often suffered from poor execution
All in all, it just didn't convince me, with the world being as bland and the enemies as unimaginative as they were, the game never drove me to adapt to situations or improve versatility to face different enemies. It added some neat variety with power stancing, but with the enemies being very bland, I never really bothered and just stuck to the fastes way to dispach them with relative ease. All of that wasn't as apperant to me when it came out, as I just compared it to ds1, and it mostly just felt like a different game altogether, but compared to ds3 it's pretty obvious. It just feels slower, heavier and far less cohesive than 1&3, which isn't the worst thing, but I get why some people consider it the weakest of the trilogy.

>Scholar, which is a big improvement in every way.
It really wasn't the new enemy placement just gets absolutely stupid. Try comparing the spawns for Harvest Valley between base and scholar and you'd see just how stupid some of the added ambush placements are.

I'm not bitching because it adds difficulty, it really doesn't but what it does do is throw off the level balance in DS2, it's nearly unavoidable to either be overleveled or have so many life-gems and consumables that the game is trivial.

I finished Demon's Souls once and Dark Souls twice, but I always quit DS2 for some reason. Sometimes after a few hours, sometimes half way in. No idea why. Something just feels off.

Attached: 1637571002859.webm (626x360, 2.06M)

You might have the wrong thread we're not discussing DS3

>DS2 is the most RPG of the games, and the most video gamey
>It wears this fact proudly
>This is somehow a bad thing

Atleast DS2 had a fun multiplayer areas known as the clock tower.
Elden ring didnt get shit.

Attached: 1619392381258.jpg (298x296, 44.01K)

Everyone that's not mentally unhinged agrees it's a decent game that gets rightfully overshadowed by other From titles. Your perception is biased because this game is used by schizophrenic shitposters as a battleground to farm for (You)s from other schizophrenic shitposters

2 had exploits of its own, but it was mostly limited to an OP weapon or specific meta build. It wasn't on a fundamental level. A player in DS1 can circle strafe and backstab 95% of the enemies, which will carry them through the game, and that's across any possible build right from SL1. And the enemies in 1 are a lot stupider and susceptible to more cheesing. You can easily run past the enemies, you can iframe through fog walls, you can kite indviduals away from groups, etc. That was a lot more punishable in 2. The beginning in 2 is a lot rougher because your character has real weaknesses and shittier equipment. The only character that even starts with a shield has a broken sword to go with it, and the shield isn't even 100% block. You need to level str to like 16 I think before you can even wield the drangleic shield, plus it's actually heavier too which matters because every point of equip load will slow stamina regen and decrease your roll distance. In DS1 you could just rely on Havel and fap's ring to bring whatever equip load your were at below 25% pretty easily without any tradeoff.
The enemy placements, and behavior, are better across the board and make the game a lot more challenging, while being more fair. There's really nothing too bad or unfair. It's a lot more fun than in vanilla where there was lots of empty space, or you'd be forced to fight multiple enemies and there's nothing you can really do about it. Scholar has higher enemy counts but there's actually more opportunities to fight enemies 1 on 1 than you do in vanilla. And the encounters feel more creative. In Undead Crypt I swear those ghost just appear whether a bell is rung or not, but in Scholar if you're careful you wont aggrp a whole gank of ghosts if you're playing smart. And there's sconces to light that bring in an npc invader that replace the shield knights just blocking walkways you had to face. Lots of areas got little details and touch ups like this added.

I liked that every time you died your health got smaller and you looked more like a zombie. I get that it may not make sense from a gameplay point of view to punish players that die a lot by making the game harder cause they have less health. However the undead curse actually having an effect on your character was really cool. I also really liked that to get into the grave of saints you had to buy the cat ring and drop down the well. Lots of fun little ideas. The covenants were cool too, especially the ones like the rat one where you’re guarding a specific area. Honestly I like Dark Souls 2 more than Dark Souls 3.

Same. it's a more fair system than was in DeS where you'd die just one time and your hp would be cut in half. I like how it gave a reason to be human where as in DS1 you could just play the whole game hollow, and you wouldn't get invaded either. You can get invaded while hollow in 2, and in Scholar there's more npc invasions that can invade at pretty random times you have to worry about.

>but there's actually more opportunities to fight enemies 1 on 1 than you do in vanilla
This one phrase makes you think you didn't play scholar. The ambushes are hardly well-designed and pretty much all the new ones added throw 2-3 enemies at you from obvious locations. More often then not it just makes the level a slog because you're dealing with constant spawns of the same type of enemy. Harvest Valley is just mannkin after mannkin pack and Iron Keep has so many packs of alonne knights that it just gets silly. The run from to smelter has nearly quadruple the amount of knights compared to vanilla.

And so many enemies makes scholar into a breeze because you always have a retarded amount of souls on hand.

Scholar was a fan mod sold as an official experience

>In DS1 you could just rely on Havel and fap's ring to bring whatever equip load your were at below 25% pretty easily without any tradeoff.
In DS2 you can use royal soldier's ring and third dragon ring for the same effect, and with 2 spare ring slots to boot.

>true powerstancing
>jump button
>hollowing stages
>linear encumberance up to 70%
>adp
>large array of diverse and unique weapons that aren't just reskins of eachother
>most balanced
>punishes rollspammers
>dedicated pvp zones
>actually cool pvp rewards
>new content in ng+s
>bonfire ascetics
>lore builds on ds1 but has its own unique twists
>best hub
>best dlc content
>lockboxes and branches
>despite the original lighting system being scrapped, still has the most diverse visuals
>bosses put up a fight without being cheesy
i could go on, how did it get everything so right and piss off so many babs?

DS2 isn't a Dark Souls game

I started with ds2. Usually the first game in a series is your favourite one, but ds2 is objectively bad. It feels bland: locations, boses, enemies. And for a reason, as it was made by B team without Memezaki by scraping what previous team made. Thats why the game makes absolutely 0 sense.

Scholar was made that way because of the guarantee you will always be able to top off your health when not actively in combat thanks to people spending all their spare change on stacking lifegems (and if you don't do this you're just retarded anyway)

The high enemy count in Scholar is so that some sort of challenge can be imposed and you may die in the heat of the moment since it's obvious to anyone playing either version of DS2 that you're not going to get worn down through a level over time, so I think the idea behind Scholar was to challenge players' spatial awareness and crowd control ability. I hated the game at first but now I think I prefer it to vanilla because vanilla is just too bare in some places.

>comfiest area of souls is in the worst one
makes me sad

Attached: DARK SOULS II 9.08.2018 00_19_08.jpg (1920x1033, 486.98K)

>Stamina management matters a lot.
It's not bad until you get staggered for an hour

It filtered millions who were too proud to admit they were filtered so they have spent years trashing it to save face.

Because it was good instead of great, which somehow devolved into "Its awful horrible shit" by internet time progression.
Which then turned into "I like Ds2...That means...I'm a Chad....Heh.........heh.....Heh" By Yea Forums Chuuni autist standards.

Attached: 1337008496725.gif (468x475, 37.35K)

It's the type of game that has an exceptionally good theme. Like a universal theme that is honestly interesting and in some ways better executed than DS1. Then it is filled with half-assed ideas, brilliant ideas (cultivated phantom encounters, fleshed-out pvp covenants, NG+ manipulation), and then it has outright terrible ideas that only the most blind DS2 fanboy defends (ADP, SM, Gravesites, coop areas). It's also like a very executed souls like made by DS1 fans that don't understand why people like DS1. The formula is all wrong. The animations and combat feel sluggish and slow (their animation frames are actually the same/similar to DS1). The art design is gross and even some elements in the trailer are VASTLY better than the finished game. The graphics in general look flat and artificial and because of that the world looks awful. The boss fights are mostly hot garbage and then you have some that are among the best in the series (Alonne and Ivory King).

It's a game that does just well enough that they'll always be this absurdly vocal part of the fanbase that will defend it online and do so by heaping criticism on other titles usually easy punching bags like DS3. They've been doing it since people were afraid to admit they liked BB on Yea Forums because it'd start a shitposting war and ruin their thread. They'll be doing it when From releases their last souls title, because this fanbase is fucking shit and the only thing they talk about is either the new souls game or how shit/good DS2 was.

This post pretty much hits the nail on the head and is gonna get a few more seething (You)s.

This, the art looked liked shit, the movement felt like I was slugging through oatmeal.

The worst of all souls games.

I know the trouble development and all that but they seriously couldn't get the basic movement right? This was the third fucking souls game.

>adp
this is supposed to be good?

>it's honestly a pretty universal opinion that dark souls 2 isn't very good
it's honestly a pretty universal opinion that dark souls 2 isn't very good
>it's honestly a pretty universal opinion that dark souls 2 isn't very good
it's honestly a pretty universal opinion that dark souls 2 isn't very good
>it's honestly a pretty universal opinion that dark souls 2 isn't very good

This is your mind on jews.

>
Scholar was made that way because of the guarantee you will always be able to top off your health when not actively in combat thanks to people spending all their spare change on stacking lifegems (and if you don't do this you're just retarded anyway)

What the hell are you talking about. 99 lifegems are like 99 grasses in DeS. The soul overabundance turned a "grind or level" choice in vanilla DS2 into a "buy and level". It makes the game a snorefest even with all the added enemies.

Dude I have no idea what the fuck you're on about. The difficulty in DS2 was at least consistently upwards. Scholar completely shits the bed and becomes Cinders by the time you're done with the first area.

Heide's tower is one of the most diificult areas in the game, for me. I don't understand why they put it right at the start.

i will never play sotfs because i am not a newfag or a drone who buys all from products. i preordered it and played the launch version which was shit. i will not buy the updated version.

to filter faggots troons like you. get the fuck out.

why does that look like a nuke? what are the lore implications?