Objectively factually correct

This is an incredible game and 90% of your problems with it are bullshit.

It is a good game.

DaS3 > DaS2 SOTFS > DaS before Anor Londo > BB > DeS > DaS after Anor Londo > DaS2 at release without DLC (and even this was at least 7/10)

agreed. i really cant believe they fucked up this hard and 90% of my problems are with the bullshit aspects

Ok

why aint des + bb at the TOP

its a good game its just not a good souls game

Contrary to DS3, which is a good game but is literally not a souls game.

I think you meant to use

From playing almost all the games. I think souls games get better each iteration. So far I started from DaS up to BB and no iteration has ever disappointed me. I haven't got DaS3 yet because of DLC but I have a feeling it will be good.

All of the Souls/borne games are objectively
fucking
terrible

This is true with the exception of BB being the best one but coming before DaS3

That's one of the worst deflections people use. It's a Souls game and it's a good game. No true scotsman is a really shitty fallacy.

DaS > BB > DS3 > DeS > DS2

None of them are bad games, but DS2 is the obvious low point of the series. Anything else is a meme opinion.

Your taste is objectively terrible.

An entire 1/4th to 1/2 of DaS is the low point of the series.

Was about to post this exact ranking
I can respect switching DeS and DaS3 too

that's not what the no true scotsman fallacy is

It pretty much is. As soon as we start arguiong the details of this disagreement, the DaS2 hate brigade are going to start \pretending like everything DaS2 did was wrong and everything DaS1 did was right and that "no true souls fan" would disagree.

Duke's Archives were great, New Londo and Giant's Tomb were passable The only shitty levels are Demon Hell and Lost Izalith, and even then they were about as bad as the worst stages in DS2 (Aldia, Tseldora, Black Gulch, Shrine of Amana)

Its a meme to act like the 2nd half of DaS is any worse than vanilla DS2.

DS2 had some neat ideas, but the shitty level design, shitty bosses and retarded soul memory system were fundamental enough flaws to make it the worst game in the series.

DaS 1 > 3 = BB > 2 >>>>> SotFS

>Duke's Archives were great

The entire zone is a mess. There is not a single unique enemy in the zone except for the clams and tentacle porn which briefly show up, the main building is the same room flipped and stacked on top of each other, the outside is a barren wasteland, and don't even try to defend crystal caves.

The fact that you then put Tseldora as an example of bad level design only proves you have no idea what you're talking about. Multiple paths, good use of vertical space, visual design unique to the series, enemies that are actually threatening, and an actual use to the torch mechanic are all terrible level design in your eyes.

It pretty much isn't. No true scotsman would imply that he excluded DS2 from the list of souls games under the pretext that it wasn't a true souls game. But he recognizes it as one.

now defend the rest of the shitty level design in DS2

hope you like hallways and box-shaped rooms!

The only problem is that it doesn't cater to casuals. There are a lot more casuals then there are hardcore players. If a game too deep/hard the much larger casual population will complain, while if you make it too easy, there will be much less complaints due to the small number of hardcore players.

To be honest, my biggest issue with the game were the bullshit hitboxes and how I couldn't dodge anything reliably due to them.

>There is not a single unique enemy in the zone except for the clams and tentacle porn which briefly show up
there's not a single unique enemy except for these 2 unique enemies

>poster just gives up after failing to defend the latter half of DaS1.

I sincerely hope you're a different poster who didn't read the reply chain, because if you were the same user you'd see that nowhere did I say DaS2 level design was good -- it's just infinitely better than a reasonable chunk of DaS1.

The clams weren't even unique and the area also goes against a bunch of shit that has been established for the last dozens of hours like respawning at a different bonfire or suddenly having to attack something through metal bars which up until now always acted as walls.

It's honestly my favourite from the series. I don't know if it's the plot and lore or the characters or the fashion, but I always liked it a lot more than the rest.
The first one would probably beat it if I wasn't a massive fucking pussy who can't beat the Four Kings.

>posts Buckley, then criticizes me for not using enough words to explain my incredibly clear point.

Objectively factually correct: your opinion is irrelevant and your taste is shit

>it's just infinitely better than a reasonable chunk of DaS1.
because you say so?

Dukes Archives had original enemies, creative gimmicks and a unique design. 90% of DS2 was cramped hallways and rooms with absolutely none of the organic, complex design that the Souls series has established. No use of vertical space, no sense of scale, they didn't even bother with a layout that made sense spatially.

The 2nd half of DaS is in no way worse than the majority of DS2 stages.

git gud

BB > DaS = DeS > DaS2 SOTFS > DaS3 > DaS2

The fact you ds2 faggots always rush to defend your objectively inferior souls game is hilarious. Its like you have a chip onyour shoulder and have something to prove. Ds2 is not a bad game. In fact its leagues better than most games in the same gen. Its just not as good as the other souls games due to the massive downgrades and some questionable design choices. They also pulled a bait and switch with the games advertising leading to many feeling let down. Ds2 may be your favorite souls game but bitching about how no one else likes it as much as you is pointless.

My issue with it is its terrible feeling combat and boring level design. Mobs are a gameplay design that I don't really believe in in a souls game but I'm not going to fault it for doing that, at least it keeps it fresh.

But the gameplay and level design are so fucking bad. I'm not sure how people can claim the fashion and pvp are good when the combat itself is horrible

While we're at it, the only worthwhile stages in vanilla DS2 were Bastille, The Gutter and No Man's Wharf

Drangleic Castle was one of the worst offenders. Why was this castle designed like a fucking DMC stage? Am I supposed to believe that anybody ever lived here?

>Dukes Archives had original enemies

It one (1) unique enemy all of which are shoved into one corner of one room and then some clams you run past on the way to the boss.

>creative gimmicks

I found being forced to die more annoying than creative, but not the point of complaining about it.

>a unique design

It's a library, user.

> 90% of DS2 was cramped hallways and rooms with absolutely none of the organic, complex design

Oh which Archives has none being, as I said, the same room copy and pasted multiples times.

Castle Drangleic is 10x better in SotFS

Because they shuffled a few enemies around? The design is still nonsense.

Stop being so disingenuous.

Its a good game but its just not as memorable and it doesn't pull you in as much as the other ones. The Skyrim syndrome, if you will. Definitely worth a playthrough though.

>Because they shuffled a few enemies around?
You haven't played it. You don't know what changed.

Don't dismiss it. You're being stupid.

Shoot, man, those das2 levels were the ones I was going to bring up as the best in the game. Pray tell, what are the best levels in das2 in your opinion?

Amana is great and anyone complaining is probably just bad at it.

>Pray tell, what are the best levels in das2 in your opinion?
Well, the dlc stages obviously.

In the vanilla game...Bastille, the Gutter, No Man's Wharf and Dragon Aerie were decent.
Iron Keep was fun too, if you try not to think about why the king designed his castle like some bizarre obstacle course

Its literally a hallway with a pretty skybox. Is that all it takes for you?

It's a great game. It's just the lowest in the franchise.

>Its literally a hallway with a pretty skybox. Is that all it takes for you?

Filled with fun experiences without going on for too long.

Fighting the same type of enemy for a couple minutes and then steamrolling the boss?

When a highlight of your level design is "it was over quick", it's time for a little self-reflection.

I would only say it's a good game, but I agree.

Such a waste of a first post.

Zis

Okay, explain this: you are facing majula toward the monolith from the sea. To the left of it is Heides tower, through an underground tunnel, at another part of the coastline. Further left on the coastline is no mans wharf, from which you can see the Bastille farther out. Forward and to the right of majula is the fort in the forest of fallen giants, which eventually meets up with the coastline on the other side of majula from heide's tower. From there, you can take a bird out into the ocean to the BASTILLE. Is the Bastille to the left or right of majula?

defend these bosses:
>Dragon Rider
>Copypaste Dragon Riders
>Copypaste Ornstein
>Copypaste Gargoyles
>Copypaste Sentinels
>Copypaste Smelter Demon
>Copypaste Lud&Zullen
>Skelly Lords
>Covetous Demon
>Prowling Magnus
>Old Iron King
>Rat Vanguard
>Najka
>Defender & Watcher
>Nashandra
>Ancient Dragon
>Vendrick

Defend these stages:
>Heide's Tower
>Harvest Valley
>Balck Gulch
>Shaded Woods
>Drangleic Castle
>Shrine of Amana
>Aldia's Keep
>Cave of the Dead
>Iron Passage
>Memory of the Old Iron King

Vendrick was a fun fight for me even though it objectively shouldn't have been. I guess it was just a change of pace to have an enemy that hits extremely hard but is easy to dodge, all in a boss fight that lasts forever (I only had three giants souls). Easy to not make a mistake, but high pressure to not make one anyways.

As for the stages, harvest valley, black gulch and shrine of amana all had highly memorable designs and even unique mechanics (torch to check water depth, making sure you're not in the line of sight of one of the statues, etc) as well as mostly good enemy placement. The gutter and black gulch are some of the least explained areas and thus most fun to speculate about with lore, since so little is said but item and enemy placement are subtle details that give great food for thought.

Here guys:

>people like different things than I do
>mreh mreh mreh you're all wrong
>no you're a faggot for liking that because it's not this

Thread summary complete.

>since so little is said but item and enemy placement are subtle details that give great food for thought
I really doubt B Team put as much thought into it as you do. You read interviews and it sounds like most of the time they were just smashing together randoms ideas and making it up as they went. Like how Earthen Peak originally had nothing to do with Iron Keep or Harvest Valley, it was supposed to be Jugo.

my problem with these bosses is that i literally don't remember a god damn thing about a single one of them. DS2 was just uninspired. Nothing memorable.

You're missing the point. Even when there is thought provoking placement that had more thought put in, the devs still probably didn't have a "right answer" in mind for what it meant. It's there like that just for the sake of making you wonder about it.

great game bad sequel

Hey, love that you specified 'before Anor Londo.' I have the exact sentiment.

I finished playing the main game recently, playing the DLC now. I really like some of the ideas they had, like bonfire ascetics and the boss that summons players, but between the floaty combat, boring bosses and awful levels I really couldn't enjoy it.

In Anor Londo you feel like you're trespassing in someone's home, with the paintings, carpets, beds, wallpaper, statues (like seeing Ornstein and Smough in statue form at the start of the level).

In Drangleic Castle you get a portrait of Nashandra in a completely barren stone room, only to see Nashandra herself in the room after.

First post best post, as usual.

Defend these bosses:
>Asylum Demon
>Farting Asylum Demon
>Burning Farting Asylum Demon
>Taurus Demon
>Pinwheel
>Moonlight Butterfly
>Ceaseless Discharge
>Centipede Demon
>Bed of Chaos
>Gaping Dragon
>Gwyndolin

Defend these areas:
>Lost Izalizh
>Demon Ruins
>The Depth
>Blighttown
>Crystal Cave
>The Duke's Archives

Better than DS3

Drangleic Castle's whole design (at least the part you're travelling through) is inane compared to Anor Londo.

> unimpressive throne room
> random mask room which is there just for the hell of it and is probably one of the most obvious traps ever
> room with acid-puking dragon statues on wheels for some reason
> random portrait room
> storage rooms here and there
> an empty room with a mirror in it that is hanging too high for normal humans but has doorways that are too low for the larger characters to walk through
> another single-seat throne room/audience room thing because well, you have to meet Nashandra SOMEWHERE, I guess
> treasury which has all the gold neatly shoved into the corners
> room with the Executioner Chariot horse running around - don't ask why
and much more

meanwhile in Anor Londo:
> living rooms
> bed rooms
> small church
> small forge
> trophy room with dragon/wyvern/wyrm/whatever-they-are-called-at-the-moment heads for obvious reasons
> elevators of different sizes for humans and large characters
> painting of the PWoA has its own large room, making it look important and draws attention
> crypt below the main building
All of it makes more or less sense

Who is Nashandra anyway? I didn't really get the ending to be honest.

I played vanilla DS2 and remembered the kings seal door in the castle and went there soon as I got the ring. I then killed those two dicks and nothing much happened if I recall.

Went and did the giant dream things and game back to her standing in that room talking like she knew me.

I'm finding it hard to recall any specifics of that game now I think about it, I just don't get where she fit in, was she the queen on the throne earlier?

I really zoned out towards the end.

You're a meme opinion

Uh, SotFS only moved around enemies and, iirc, added two red phantoms. None of the actual design of castle changed with that release.

rude

The biggest issue i see so far with DS2 is the philosophy of "difficulty through annoyance". Instead of just doing something interesting and challenging, let's just throw more of this bullshit in there so you have to be extra EXTRA careful and go extra slow.
I just hate that.

DS3 sadly went with this as well.

I think I just don't get Bloodborne. Everyone says it's so great, even v, and I just didn't like it at all. I even finished it. I didn't dislike it but I had zero fun.

It's true, all though I say that it doesn't really become great until you get to the DLC lad.

The main vanilla game is full of meme bosses and zones.

>it's a good game but it's a bad souls game
here, i fixed it for you

Not him, but that argument is really shitty
If it's a "bad souls game" aka disappointing sequel, then it's not a very good game is it?

In reality, it's a disappointing sequel, but not really a bad game

Forgettable bosses, forgettable zones, garbage design lacking any soul or journey or epicness, a dead and boring world. Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin is a good game, but not a good souls game.

This is the objective ranking that nobody can refute or prove wrong:

BB > DaS3 > DaS > DaS2 > DS.

>Soul Memory
Yeah, no.

True.

If I already have DaS2+DLCs should I get SotFS?

No, don't give money to that wannabe Miyazaki, buy DaS1 and DaS3 if you want to support the company/franchise. B team needs to get cancer.

I think the "best" Dark Souls game in players' minds depends on what you want out of the game. If you only play through the game once, then DS3 will probably feel like the best. If you want replayability (like me) DS2 is far and away the best. DS1 hits both notes pretty well, but not as strongly as either game.

You are wrong. You are uninformed. Please go play

> None of the actual design of castle changed with that release.
Not relevant. The changes are important made a big difference.