Dark Souls II (2014)

The second Dark Souls entry builds on the legacy of its predecessor by offering a massive, interconnected world filled with danger, mystery, and punishing combat. It stays true to the series’ core identity, every fight demands patience, precision, and a willingness to learn from failure. The game broadens character customization with a wide range of weapons, spells, and builds, making experimentation more rewarding than ever. Compared to the first Dark Souls, however, its world design feels less tightly woven, with areas that sometimes lack the same sense of cohesion and atmosphere.

You can never interconnect the worlds, physically, making it a much less immersive one compared to the first one which felt like a real place, since the entirety of the world was connected in some way. The large number of bosses adds variety, but many are less memorable than the iconic encounters of the original, especially because there are a lot of reskins and reuse of the same bosses, making if feel like an old SNES-era title, which devs simply changed the enemy color, changed it's name and called it a new thing entirely.

Still, the game shines in its oppressive mood, haunting environments, and the thrill of overcoming seemingly impossible odds. While it may be divisive among fans, Dark Souls II remains a challenging and deeply satisfying entry in the series, rewarding those willing to endure its trials. Particularly speaking I hated this one from start to finish, until I learned how to master it's differences compared to the first title, then I started loving this one as much as I loved all the other Dark Souls entries up until that point.

This title is much more enjoyable if you play the enhanced versions of it, which I unfortunately never experienced, they are much more challenging and add more content while also shifting enemy placement/count in the world. Another unskippable content are the DLCs, in my opinion they are a standout, introducing new contents entirely, from enemies, spells, weapons and even fun little mechanics here and there when it comes to exploration. I highly recommend not skipping this one if you enjoy Dark Souls to any extent, just keep in mind this is a game that is focused much more in the adventure aspect, instead of the combat-focused RPG elements of the previous titles such as Demon's Souls and Dark Souls.

I loved nearly everything about this game. I've read a lot of the criticisms trying to understand the hate, and I've seen a few main complaints about this game:

1. A new stat -- adaptability -- needs to be leveled way up to get i-frames/dodging to "feel" like DS1 and DS3 feel right from the start
2. The hollowing system that starts you at lower health after you die
3. Level design that doesn't really affect play (weird things like taking an elevator a mile up into the sky from the top of a castle and end up in a lava level)
4. Level design around mob placement
5. Hitboxes were sometimes off

Someone went as far as to say if the game wasn't in the DS univerese and instead was called "Adventure to Drangleic Castle" it wouldn't have gotten good reviews. I actually think the opposite would be true. Most comments I've seen from people who played this as their first entry into the series loved it; me included, as this is my first DS game. So that leads me to conclude that people that don't like it just want it to be a clone of DS1/3 with new skins/locations, which is silly. The same people that are complaining about the devs innovating and changing things up would be complaining if they didn't innovate.

So to address the complains I've seen:

1. DS offers a lot of ways to make the game harder. You can play the NG+ and above iterations after you finish, you can join a specific covenant, you can use bonfire ascetic. They decided to make dodging something you could improve with experience or skill, or both. Why is this bad? Because you didn't have to pay for it before? It is an RPG after all.
2. I can see hating this feature. I personally enjoyed that it forced you to walk a line between being hollow and having a lower max health and deciding when to use an effigy (especially difficult when also wanting to save them so you could be human to do summons before boss fights)
3. It's silly, but doesn't affect play, I don't really care.
4. To me I see this similar to boss fights. You do the fights a few times, memorize what the boss is going to throw at you and how to time it, where to stand, etc... then you get better at that boss and eventually defeat it. The devs used mob placement to create bubbles of more difficult areas in the game, but once you die there, you figure out a way to make it easier the next time. Just like boss fights. Shrine and Amana was extremely frustrating, but did the devs do something wrong? Maybe, they forced me to use a bow even though I wasn't really a ranged character.
5. Frustrating sometimes, but you learn what to avoid the same way as you would if the hitbox was perfect.

As a new souls player, I loved this game. Almost everything about it. Yes there were imperfections, but it's still an amazing game. And now I'm moving on to my next From game.

I've played Dark Souls II many times over already. Probably at least 6 times prior to my most recent triad of playthroughs which will be the subject of this review. However, all of those prior playthroughs were in the Scholar of the First Sin edition. Being the Souls addict that I am, last summer I decided to pick up the original version of the game on steam so I could experience DS2 as it released initially, prior to all the changes and fixes that Scholar brought to the table, while grabbing all the achievements as well.

I'll start out by saying that despite its issues, I think this game (and the Scholar version, by extension) is really great. It's a step down in some ways from most of the other FromSoft Souls games imo for a variety of reasons, but still manages to impress through its willingness to experiment with weird and niche mechanics. I'm still hoping FromSoft brings back Bonfire Ascetics in some way for a future game. Being able to take specific zones into New Game+ difficulty along with refreshing all the items and bosses in them without modifying any other zones in the file simultaneously is too fucking cool to not revisit.

Regardless of what you've heard, I feel that it's worth at least checking this game out if you've enjoyed any of the other Soulsborne games. For this review though, I mainly want to focus on comparing the "vanilla" version of the game to the "director's cut" version, Scholar of the First Sin.

On the whole, I was surprised to find that this version of the game feels more welcoming to play from the get go. I mean that the enemy placements in the first major area, The Forest of Fallen Giants, feel tailored to be more in line with what one would expect from an early game area. There are plenty of weak hollow soldiers to be found, but never too many to handle unless you try to charge through the area carelessly. Many of the pain points from these early areas that I had in Scholar edition were nowhere to be found, such as the heavily-armored turtle soldiers surrounded by explosive barrels on ledges, or the room littered with hollows playing dead to catch you out, or even (to get a bit ahead of myself here) the dragon that is inexplicably chilling directly outside the boss room of a dragonslayer. The vanilla version of the game still wants to trick you and cackle at your face as you die, but it feels less overt about it in the early hours compared with its remaster. It was refreshing.

I found that this trend became less consistent as I went along however. No Man's Wharf felt less overbearing with its pacing of mobs aggroing on you, but I also missed the shortcut they added in in Scholar. That was a very nice touch and the area is a slog to run back through after losing to the boss without it. The Iron Keep, one of the more infamous areas from Dark Souls II, remained relatively the same as in Scholar. As usual, I felt compelled to kill the knights littering this area until they despawned to have a clean run to the Smelter Demon, a boss I never was too keen on to begin with. Brightstone Cove Tseldora is a lot more irritating to deal with without the added mechanic of spiders fleeing burning torches. Another great Scholar edition change I missed.

Later areas like Shrine of Amana and Undead Crypt felt more forgiving in vanilla, while Dragon Shrine was significantly worse. The latter tosses way too many powerful enemies at you on your way to the dragon. Wave after wave of the guys. By the time I made it through, I was honestly kind of pissed off. It felt relentless in the worst way. Scholar definitely wins there, with the way the area was revamped around the idea of having honorable duels with the large golem soldiers in order to otherwise progress unfettered. Both here and in a few other areas, Scholar feels designed for those who have already played the original version with the way it toys with and sometimes subverts your expectations.

Overall, I think OG Dark Souls II ends up being the easier game to complete, but harder to get all achievements for (DLC spells aside, since vanilla doesn't require them). Grinding for covenant items is tougher to avoid, since Scholar has siphoned most online traffic away from the original release, and the farming locations for Sunlight Medals are less convenient to work around, which exacerbates the already dire slog of farming for them. For reference, it took me around 3-4 hours of straight farming the same two enemies repeatedly with item-drop-chance-enhancing gear equipped before I got all 30 Sunlight Medals I needed. It sucked.

It's tough to choose which version is better for a first playthrough. I think I lean more in the direction of the original release for new players because the enemies just feel better paced and positioned in it. But the tweaks made to Scholar such as new shortcuts and added npc invasions alongside great fixes for stuff like enemies aggroing on you while you sit at certain bonfires make a strong case for that version as well. Because of how inconsistent in quality some of these changes are, Scholar ends up feeling less like the definitive version of Dark Souls II and more like a fun little shakeup with quality of life stuff for those who are tired of the original but enjoyed it well enough.

NOTE: Originally posted in a personal game journal. Originally completed back in 2018.

Surprise: it's more Dark Souls. It's gothic, punishing and yes you will die a lot. The slow, deliberate combat came back rather quick. the first encounter is always to learn the patterns of the enemy. I've also gathered and lost and gathered many souls again. Sound familiar yet?

I don't know if I have the need to punish myself quite this much, well at least not enough to see it to the end, but the lure of exploring the world is quite strong. The battles are hard fought and the victories well deserved. That alone makes the anguish worth it all.

My main point criticism of this entry is two fold - the world doesn't feel as well designed or tightly woven and there is just so much more of the game, with uninteresting and forgettable bosses that leaves the game feeling bloated and uneven.

There's a certain inviting warmth to Dark Souls II. Maybe it's due to the game's lovely, peaceful hub, the small seaside town of Majula. Maybe it's due to that fact that the Kingdom of Drangleic possesses a fascinatingly quaint personality compared to the worlds of previous games to bear the Souls name. Maybe it's due to the fact that with an absolutely massive variety of weapons and play-styles available, this game encourages the type of repeated play-throughs that can result in a total hour-count that would make most other games blush. Maybe it's the fact this is where the ambitious online multiplayer and the covenant system found in these games finally clicked into place.

Whatever the reason, It's quite telling that the "worst" game in From Software's Souls series is still one of the best games of all time. And while there surely are some nit-picks worth addressing (some shoddy hit-boxes, a few underwhelming boss encounters, anticlimactic ending, the fact that it released on the previous-gen consoles first), these issues issues carry even less weight when you add the stellar Scholar of the First Sin DLC content to the picture, which expanded the scope of this game considerably and made it feel far more like a complete piece. Dark Souls II is a lengthy saga of a game, filled with some of the most memorable moments in the entire series. It's not as universally revered as some other FromSoft games but it displays the same level of adventurous spirit and willingness to experiment while continually testing the limits of players that made this studio legendary. Don't, under any circumstances, skip.

OVERVIEW

• Rating: 8,5/10
• Hours played: 80
• Pros: build variety, multiplayer, progression freedom, interface
• Cons: challenge, level and boss design

PLAYTHROUGHS

I have completed Dark Souls II on PC four times until now. My first time with the game took me around 50 hours. I also played the DLC pack twice, and they gave me almost 20 extra hours of gameplay the first time.

GAMEPLAY

Dark Souls II (DkS2) is a great game, but a weird sequel to Dark Souls. The change of direction is noticeble, and it was primarily to the detriment of the product. It did improve on some aspects, though, and it turns out to be an easier introduction to the series than the original.

One of the greatest changes is found on the healing system. Now, alongside the Estus Flasks, players have access to lifegems, consumables that can be found in abundance and bought infinitely. They heal the character very slowly, turning them useless during fights, but carrying a bunch of them almost ends the challenge of exploring an unkown place. I don't like lifegems.

There's also a new death-penalty system. On the first game, when the player chacter died, he/she would lose its souls and humanity. Now, you also lose 10% of your maximum health, progressively after each death, until it reaches 50%. Consuming a Human Effigy restores the maximum HP and the human status. That change was great, because it forces players to be more careful with the Human Effigies: 10% of HP is no big deal, so you can ignore it, saving the item for when you get stuck on a boss that takes more than 3 attempts to kill.

Combat is slower and methodical on DkS2. The ability to dodge to any direction and the jump buttom on the analog stick were good additions. The game also comes with an amazing variety of weapons (upgrading and enchanting them is also way easier than on the original) and spells, giving it the greatest replay-value of the trilogy when it comes to possible (and viable) builds. That also helped the multiplayer: making different types of characters to try the PVP arena was something that even I, a player who mostly focuses on the PVE of these games, enjoyed. DkS2 has, by far, the best multiplayer of the series, it's easy to access and used to be very populated until a year ago.

The issues start to appear when we consider the levels and bosses. DkS2 had a clear "quantity over quality" problem, bringing an enourmous amount of levels and bosses to experience, but the overall quality presented was very low. Levels are too linear and unimaginative, while the bosses are often boring and frequently too similar (when they are not the exact same as you've already seen). Because exploring creative levels and fighting climatic boss fights are among my favourite things on Dark Souls, the problems showed by the sequel were major letdowns for me.

A silver lining here is the fact that the world design offers a good amount of options when it comes to game progression. The interconectivity of the first game is gone, but DkS2 uses a hub area with different branching paths to allow players to explore most of the game however they choose, only turning into a linear, straightforward showdown during the last third of the playthrough.

The challenge is probably my main issue with DkS2, though. Multiple times during my playthroughs I found myself thinking they have forgotten how exactly to make the game challenging in a fun way, instead of difficulty for the sake of it.It's unbalanced as well. Lifegems and the abundance of bonfires trivialise many levels, while the overuse of encounters against numerous foes seems a forced way of testing player skill. It's almost like they try to amenize stupid challenge design by giving players some tools to make the game easier to deal with. Some bosses are easy to the point of not being worthy of their big health bars, and some long corridors filled with enemies are bound to become the most boring part of the DkS2 experience.

The major redeeming factor for DkS2 is the extra content. The game released a pack of 3 DLC's, each with their own unique areas to explore and a good set of bosses to fight. Here you can find quality of design to rival what the first game did best, with creative level design, areas that are remarkably distinct from the main game and bosses that not only are highly challenging, but fair, enjoyable to fight and often quite spetacular on presentation. If you ever want to try this game, the DLC is absolutely necessary to enhance your experience. The Scholar of the First Sin edition, released for the current generation of consoles include all 3 of them, so I believe that's the best way to go through DkS2.

NARRATIVE

The presentation of story and lore on DkS2 uses the same machanisms already well known from the first game. Your character will visit a place called Drangleic, a land full of mysteries and numerous challenges will stand in your way while you try to save all things. Sort of. The actual plot in a lot of ways (specially with the DLC) focuses a little more on the main character, but what's going on with Drangleic is nothing new to anyone who played Dark Souls. DkS2 actually uses the idea of cycles to justify the fact that Drangleic is on a similar situation to Lordran. I liked the concept. Essentially, the events of DkS2 happen many generations after the first game, on another land, so you'll visit places and face enemies that are different to what you saw on Lordran, but the actual stakes here are primarily the same, with some odd twists.

For anyone who's not familiar with the storytelling of Dark Souls, it's important to mention that a lot of the lore elements are subjective, with many events being left to player interpretation. My issue with the narrative on the sequel lies on the fact that it's overly vague, we don't have the basic concepts of the world presented to us at the beggining like the cinematic intro of the original had, so it's quite easy to be confused. I do like some of the directions they went with, though, and while the cast of NPC's is not as memorable as the ones from Dark Souls, there are enough of them on the game, with a varied set of personalities and goals, so I don't count that as a big negative.

TECH

DkS2 comes with an interesting world, with levels that do stand out from each other, but the art design is not as inspired as it is seen on the rest of the franchise. I do like the designs for weapons and armor a lot, however, and the DLC's did provide a higher level of polishment on the environments. The graphics are not very pretty, and there was a major downgrade on the release version when it was compared to the ones showed on previews of the game. However, the Scholar of the First Sin edition brought meaningful improvements on that department.

Music and sound design is still very good, if not as memorable as the greatest tunes of the other games. I also would like to point out that the modifications to the UI were very welcome, the quality of life brought by them to the game is a big plus. I never experienced any major bugs or glitches playing DkS2.

CONCLUSION

Dark Souls II has a large number of flaws, and fails to deliver some of the things I value the most on the series (specially bosses and levels). With the DLC content, however, the value of the product raises significantly, so the additional content is a must to anyone interested in the game. DkS2 is not the sequel most people wanted for the first game (I honestly don't think it really needed one), but it's a great action-RPG, with engaging character progression, an interesting setting and the good basics of gameplay for long hours of fun.

After having played Dark Souls I and III, I wanted to complete the trilogy and play part II as well.

My first observation: The game mechanics are quite different. I did not mind most of these changes, however I hated the substitution of Estus by lifegems (that is at least until you collect enough Estus shards to make using Estus a viable option). They probably just wanted to make the more accessible to new players, but I hated this mechanic.

All things considered I enjoyed the game, even though it was easier than Dark Souls I (especially the bosses; I rarely needed more than 1 attempt with them).

Some observations:

- the lore:

While Dark Souls I has an interesting and convincing story, the lore of Dark Souls II seemed rather vague and unconvincing to me.

- sorcery vs. faith:

In Dark Souls I and III I relied heavily on sorcery and pyromancy. This time I wanted to play with a faith and miracle based character, but gave up quickly on that. My miracles (faith ~ 25) barely put a dent into the enemy health bar. After I shifted my 25 faith points over to intelligence using a soul vessel, my spells did more than decent damage. Imho there could be a better balance here.

- Titanite:

While I acquired a Titanite Slab relatively early in the game, it took me quite long to get enough Titanite Chunks to upgrade two weapons (And let's face it: with the low durability stats of most weapons you have to reinforce multiple weapons at the same time.)

- durability:

The low durability of my weapons annoyed me most during my playthrough. I barely finished an area without getting the "at risk" notification. During the Sentinels fight I almost died while using repair powder on my weapon.

- adaptability/agility:

I really liked the introduction of this new stat. Being able to influence the speed with which my character uses items or drinks Estus is a nice touch.

A fantastic game on it's own merits, it's unfortunately lacking in regards to the other games in the series. The pacing, environments, and bosses are disappointing compared to it's predecessor's, and the abundance of save points in this entry make some areas feel less epic and intense than they could have been. There's also the issue of the game relying more on player frustration than on genuine difficulty this time around. All in all, this is likely the worst game in the series, but it's still a terrific game.

Score: 8.5/10

After playing a little of Dark Souls 1 to refresh my memory, I now have a very clear picture of why DS2 was so awful in comparison. I'm going to try to break it down. Note: this is a really long-winded unnecessary rant about DS2. I have a lot of strong emotions on this topic and I just need to vent. If you want to know my overall feelings, just skip to the very last paragraph. :)

Enemies: instead of creative, surreal, horrifying enemies they used things like mummies, dwarves and pirates. Completely killed the atmosphere and immersion, very childish and boring.

Combat: They pretty much removed the 'skill' element from the game. The earlier games required you to really develop a high level of skill and learn how to deal with each monster individually. All of the monsters attacked the same; very few of them had unusual attacks or shields. The parry and backstab mechanics were removed from the game (pretty much) completely destroying the fun visceral feeling of the earlier games. Other bad mechanics were brought in, like the inability to double-drink from the flask. The health reduction of hollow and all the multiplayer elements sucked too. They broke a good system. The only good thing was the new messaging soapstone feature, which was excellent!

Levels/Environment: Firstly, DS2 is extremely ugly and low quality, both in terms of textures and models, not to mention the lighting. This ruined the mood and killed the immersion. Apart from that, the game was a mess. It seemed like they had hired 8 teams of high school kids to think up levels without communicating with each other. The levels don't flow or connect into each other and there's no overall theme or identity. This is my biggest gripe. DS1 is so beautiful in the way it's interconnected and each environment flows gradually into the next without loading screens. You really get a feel for the place. DS2 is just a mess of ugly unconnected 'random' levels (piratey level, spooky slenderman woods, medieval castle with statues, etc.) with irritating load screens in between. There was no balance either; some levels were huge, others took 10 minutes to complete and you'd never venture back there. Demons Souls had warps and disconnected level design, but I still felt there was an overall cohesion and consistency. Plus; it was only 5 or so huge areas, instead of the 20 or so smaller ones from DS2. Some of the levels (Forest of Fallen Giants, Shaded Woods) were so awful, they honestly looked like something from Quake 2. Lots of ugly low-res repeated brown textures and incomplete dead-end hallways. The messy nature of it made the game directionless. In earlier souls games, or any game you generally know where to go next, and what you're doing. In DS2 I had to constantly check the wiki because there was no sense whatsoever what the hell I'm doing or where I'm meant to be going. The earlier games had a beautiful crafted look, everything was carefully planned and placed, the rooms looked lived in or dirty. Things like tables and furniture carefully set out. In DS2 it looked like a hurried copy-and-paste job, lots of repeated textures/models/hallways, no hand-designed touches. A lot of it looked like free downloadable shit from the Unity store, whole levels of it.

Ragdoll Physics: I can't believe they removed the ragdolls. One of the best features of the earlier games. That broke my heart.

Challenge: Dark Souls 2 isn't an easy game. But it's not challenging. In the earlier games you had to use your head and use strategy to beat it. In DS2 there's no challenge or strategy or difficulty, it's just kind of irritating. Instead of challenging combat with unpredictable enemies, it's just too many large enemies with big HP stores. Instead of cleverly designing the battles, the developers just inserted extra monsters and increased their HP and attack damage. It meant the game was just frustrating but not challenging. DS1 was great for nasty little traps around every corner; treasure would lure you in and then something would appear from behind. Nothing clever like that in DS2 except maybe 1 or 2 mimic chests.

Atmosphere: This is the game-breaker for me. Just the overall feeling of the game was kind of childish. The earlier games had a real dark foreboding atmosphere, a sense of desolation. You felt alone in a world of horror and despair. In DS2 it feels more like your standard stupid action game. You're the hero, on a quest. Then the combination of all the points above make it feel like more of a grind. The aesthetic components were the worst, poor enemies and level/game design just gave the whole game a jumbled feeling, it was an ugly mess, an 10 year old's cheesy nightmare after watching too much Pirates of the Caribbean.

Although I was pretty disappointed by Dark Souls II, by the end of the experience I felt like it had redeemed itself a fair bit. It was a really tiresome grind around the half-way mark, but it actually improved greatly toward the later levels. If you ignore the earlier titles, it's actually a really good game. It has some hiccups, some areas of poor quality and some cheap enemies, but overall it's still quite fun. Though if you're thinking about playing it, I suggest the two earlier games.