In Defense of Dark Souls 2
Video Statistics and Information
No captions available for this video.
Channel: hbomberguy
Views: 2,445,791
Rating: 3.9190595 out of 5
Keywords: hbomb, hbomberguy, dark souls 2, matthewmatosis
Id: SRTfcMeqhig
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 79min 43sec (4783 seconds)
Published: Sat Apr 15 2017
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
You argue that in dark souls one the attrition is the problem. But i would argue its worse in dark souls 2. Every time you fail, you have less healing than before, less life gems and less max health. I was never afraid to explore in ds1 because i knew whatever happened, i could just restart, always with full healing. In ds2 I was always uncomfortable because i knew if i ran out of life gems, i was boned. Interesting enough stuff though. I can see why people like one over the other.
While annoying from time to time - The player should learn when to heal and when not to do that.
I've done it so many times, being hit and spamming the estus which got me killed - It takes some weird kind of patience to wait for an opening and then use that for healing, thats just part of the Dark Souls-experience.
For me that specific experience is a lot about patience and greed. Those are often the two reasons why I die, because I either lost patience or got too greedy. I try to rush through an area, get jumped by enemies and die. I try to get another hit in on the enemy and bam, I die.
About lifegems - I've heard the complaints about it ruining the game because you get "infinite" healing and that it forces you to farm for lifegems because they are so necessary!
They honestly dont, you can do fine with just the estus. I always forgot to equip lifegems so I think I ended up buying around 10 of the small ones from a merchant, then only using them in later ngs...
I get why people focus so much on the lifegems but imo they're really not that important. If you want to use them, fair. If you don't want to use them, thats' fair too. Doesnt ruin or enhance the experience imo.
[removed]
1) Life Gems
I disagree with this point. He mentions that it's frustrating to be part way through a section and run out of Estus, meaning you know you're fucking and are going to lose your progress. However, I think this ignores both the feeling of tension gained when you're frantically trying to find a new bonfire while on low health, wondering if each new corner would either bring a checkpoint of bring an encounter with an enemy. I think that's an important feeling which Life Gems remove.
Also, I think he overemphasises the slowness. It only take ~10 seconds to go from barely any to full health with a Life Gem, especially if you're using the more expensive ones. This, combined with the fact that they're quicker to consume, means they're much more feasible to use in bosses, making it much more realistic just to trade hits with a boss and come out fine.
On my first DS2 run, I didn't use any Life Gems (I have an aversion to consumables in games in general), and I feel like it led to a much better experience.
2) Humanoids in Armour
Yeah, I agree with his point 100% here. I think there's a reason why Artorias is generally seen as the best boss in DS1, and Fume Knight and Sir Alonne in DS2. Dark Souls' mechanics are best suited to 1v1 fights with similarly sized enemies.
3) Groups of Enemies
first of all don't you dare insult my boy matthew
Secondly, sure, crowd control is a skill, but I think the mechanics of the game actively hinder that attempt. Especially with weapons that have thrust rather than stab attacks, it's difficult to hit enemies without locking on. He brings up the Prowling Magnus fight, but I think the crawling enemies especially prove this. The inability to move the camera while being locked on to an enemy is a mechanical issue which makes group fights awkward. There are also plenty of examples which (iirc) Matthew brings up
I also think it's a bit dickish insulting Matthew over his use of the shield, especially when all the games promotional information showed a dude using a shield, and especially when the core mechanics of the game (through Agility effecting your iFrames) disincentives the 'pro' way of playing by making rolling through attacks much more difficult and obtuse. The game also does a poor job of communicating that shields aren't needed. I thought 'git gud' was only used as an ironic argument...
4) Tracking
Circle strafing may have been a bit cheese, but the solution was to make the enemies have animations which actually make sense, not make them rotate like a spinning top so they can hit you. The Turtle Knights, which Matthew brings up in his review, are a perfect example of removing backstab cheese, but they still have horrible tracking. Again, this just seems like a 'git gud' argument rather than dealing with the flaw.
5) Interconnected levels and linearity.
I don't really care either way, I think there's arguments for both DS1's and DS2's level design. However, it seems a bit of an awkward argument to criticise the runs to bosses in DS1 when runs to bosses in DS2 (such as Vendrick, The Rotten, etc.) are also pretty horrible. DS1 also has plenty of well designed levels that can lead you through in both directions (like Sens' Fortress, Painted World). He brings up Blight Town as an example, but I seem to remember loads of people criticising that level design at the time.
6) Linearity in individual fights.
I feel this argument is a bit cherry picked. There are loads of examples in DS1 where you can bait individual enemies away from a group, or pull them away from the view of archers. For example, in the Berg with the open area just after the drake, you can either run into the middle and dodge the arrows, or run past the enemies and kill the archer first, or pull the enemies either into the corridor before the drake or the wall near the archer.
And no, there are no arguments that make the Shrine of Amana good. 'Snipe enemies with your bow' doesn't make it any better, just shows how tedious it is. And you can't argue 'git gud' in an earlier argument than criticise purists who don't want to summon.
7) Shields
Yeah, I can see where he's coming from, but I still don't think they do a good job of it. The game barely gave you any new items in the first few encounters (as someone who started my first run with a Bandit Knife learnt to their dismay...). In Majula, the only shop at the start only sells shields and armour too. Furthermore, the agility skill completely disincentives using dodges unless you actually know the background mechanics quite well.
8) Plot
Yeah, I don't really disagree. I think the plot of DS2 is a bit unfairly criticised. However, I still think Hbomb unfairly criticises Matthew's critique in this regard. Hbomb calls DS2's plot 'an unsolvable puzzle', but that implies there was, at some point, a solution. As Matthew says, the issue was that while DS1 felt like there was something comprehensive hidden from us that we'll never really no, DS2 feels like they like just attempted to emulate that without having this underlying structure. And again, as Matthew says in his review (which apparently Hbomb missed?), sure, they might be trying to go for a mysterious 'you'll never really know what happened' plot line, but that's still a bit of a lazy plotline.
I think what it came down to was that the sequel was just different enough to kind of annoy people early on. You have the story which has ties to DS1 but not really. You have a world that's similar to DS1, but not really. And with those changes, you don't have anything "special." It didn't really do anything to go above and beyond DS1 with the exception of some quality DLC. So I can understand why the hype may have deflated people when it came out, but I think everyone looks back and appreciates the game.
Edit: Finally finished the video and...this dude is a bit of a douche. He starts off fine but then he spins off into some hacky "People say this and those people are STUPID" kind of arguments.
I do have to agree with one thing. The interconnectivity of DS1 is great, but shit, anything that doesn't give you that same excitement of finding the elevator that takes you back to the Firelink Shrine is apparently a failure.
Tanimura did a fantastic job of 'salvaging' Dark Souls 2, which was by all accounts a complete unfinished mess by the time he took over. Even with its flaws, and as someone who has played the series since DeS, I felt DkS2 had something special, something peculiar about its atmosphere and unique to that game, whilst also feeling very much a part of the overall Souls canon. It helped that Majula was an absolutely stunning hub, complete with great musical ambience. Long story short, I enjoyed DkS2 immensely at release and this was only enhanced with the brilliant DLC.
I don't generally immerse myself in the lore and intensive metagame aspects of the Souls series so I can't speak to that, but I will say Dark Souls 2's biggest weakness was what felt like an overabundance of ideas/areas/bosses. No idea was too generic or out of place. It just felt like they daisy chained a bunch of areas together to provide more content. I don't remember the layout of the world like I did in Demon's Souls or Bloodborne or Dark Souls 1. I never had to learn the ins and outs of an area. I just sort of played each area like a level, fought the boss and bailed for good. The mini fetch quest at the end wasn't nearly as bad as Dark Souls 1 but it didn't feel neccesary either. I think as a whole it could have benefitted from a bit less of everything. It just did't feel as special or interesting to down a boss or find a new location.
People who say Dark Souls 2 was treated unfairly are correct in that its a fantastic game
However, Sins and the dlc is what made it fantastic - When it was originally released prior to its re-release and dlc, the criticism received was very well deserved
Dark Souls 2 was by all means a great pvp game however it was a very bland pve game, I honestly had more fun playing Lord's of the fallen then Ds2. The floaty characters and weapons without impact or weight, adaptability as a stat, soulless maps and boring enemies...nah, it just felt like a boring grind to play.