I found Demon Souls to be the easiest because like Dark Souls it was super easy to circle strafe enemies for brain dead back stabs. The back stab animation would then throw the opponent onto the ground, and Demon Souls is the only game in the series to not make the enemy invulnerable when you knock them down like that. So you would get a back stab which did huge damage, then the back stab would guarantee you a bunch more additional free damage as they animated their way back onto their feet. Basically made a back stab an instant kill on anything, and like I said that game made back stabs super easy. Also as someone who plays the games relying on rolling Demon Souls has the least sophisticated attack animations in my eyes. Easiest animations to read and roll, no one staggered their swings, or had awkward rhythms.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dark Souls III leaked info and screenshots [RUMOR - Better Details Write-Up]
- Thread starter kulapik
- Start date
Imru al-Qays;166706165 said:
Very true. There are a few moments that I've experienced in Dark Souls that can't compare to any of the other games in the series and this is one of them. Another one is discovering The Great Hollow. I thought it was just a small secret and then I realised it's a completely new area...And getting to the bottom of it and discovering Ash Lake simply blew my mind.
Yep.I wish the active workshop were located in the actual Yharnam itself.
I also agree with the bolded ,but they might've designed it that because of the hub system.You didn't need to have landmarks as much.
But Demon's was warp based too.
What I wish for a need to find your way to a desired location without simply falling back on a warp point i.e Dark Souls type of exploration before acquiring the lord vessel.
I got lost there as well.
Locations like Nightmare Frontier and Unseen Village were such cool moments of disorientation ,but then I realized I could just go to a lamp and instantly escape these places that were kicking my ass.
Well, defense in DS2 sucks (poise as well) so heavy armors are useless IMO. The first areas in DS2 have a lot of ambushes (more in SOTFS), thats the hard part, especially with low ADP (less i-frames).
Also, the DLC is the hardest content in Souls series IMO (excluding rotten depth 5 chalices from Bloodborne, and Demons Souls, because I never played that game so I dunno about it).
As you say bosses are pretty basic and can be avoided easily.
Also, DS2 got nerfed as fuck, Amana Shrine was waaaaaaay harder at launch.
I don't get the "It looks like Bloodborne and not Dark Souls" sentiment. Bloodborne already looks like Dark Souls in a different time period. If you remove all the obvious modern elements, I could imagine most of the areas in Bloodborne fitting seamlessly into a Souls game. Both games are heavy on the gothic architecture; the main differences are the attire and the victorian streets.
I always find the 2+ enemy boss fights to be some of the best fights because they require the most dynamic fights. 1 v 1 fights all ultimately come down to pattern recognition and optimizing your attack openings. Find out what situations leave them open and figure out how many swings you can get in each of those openings. Then it just comes down to patience and consistency. To even make things easier you might find ways to manipulate the boss into doing the things that open them up for attack more often. It's all very predictable.
Multi enemy boss fights have the same thing except for the crucial difference that each potential opening is no longer guaranteed to truly be a real opening. Ruin Sentinel 1 might do the attack you want them to for you to be able to attack, but if Ruin Sentinel 2 has Ruin Sentinel 1 covered you have to be patient and keep executing your defense rather than attack. It prevents the game from becoming a constant series of you do A I do B, you do A I do B, over and over. You get more possible situations, it requires more camera control, and sharper execution on defense.
I think a lot of people get angry in a 2 on 1 because all of a sudden they get punished for attacking in a situation that would normally work in a 1 v 1, but that's literally why I think those fights are always so fun.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yeah it is. But man, I postponed this place for so long on my Company of Champions guy (that was a faith build, he was quite strong before all the nerfs). Then I decided to make a lightning-infused red iron twinblade, and finally brave the Outskirts.
And for the first time ever, I ran through the whole place, grabbing all the loot, and killed the boss, in a single attempt, without dying once. I mean even during some coop runs I'd usually die at least once, either to the horses or to the boss. Out of all the times I tried without dying it was on my poor nerfed champion, haha. The RITB or Santier spear is great there 'cause it keeps staggering the horses. And RITB + sunlight blade + brightbug almost killed the first pet before the second one came down.
Red iron twinblade OP <3
I went through most of the game with 8 adaptability and no points in atunement for my first character in my first playthrough. I didn't experience any issues with rolling at all. If anything I guess having played Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, I finally got gud at rolling.
Even in PVP, rolling and i-frames were not an issue. Poise sucks in DS2 I agree. Lots of ambushes but that doesn't make the game difficult, if anything frustrating. While enemies in DS2 scholar of the first sin have large agro ranges, you can pretty much just ignore them and run to a safe location. That's the thing with DSII level design, you can know even in your first being in an area, that there are places enemies won't come at you, and where you can heal safely. That's what I did earlier in the game. I didn't bother fighting the enemies. All I cared for was reaching the next bonfire, and getting into the boss fight. Bonfires are also placed so close to one another. It's also very linear, there's no real challange in finding bonfires in DSII. This wasn't the case in a place like Blightown in Dark Souls I or the Tower of Latria in Demon's Souls. Finding bonfires in Dark Souls and Demon's Souls was a challenge.
The lighting is important too. In Dark Souls II, areas are very bright, even in places where there isn't supposed to be any light sources, you can see. In Dark Souls 1 there's tomb of the giants where you can't see at all unless you have Cast Light or the Skull lantern. The path is also very treacherous. Those were really fun times, and I died many times there. In Dark Souls II you don't even need a torch to see in the dark places.
DLC? Hmm they seem to have only added mobs of enemies which can also be easily avoided save for a few. The part in the DLC where you get to fight three bosses at once was interesting. That was a real challenge playing solo no summons, but I figure out a way to cheese through it so the illusion of difficulty was lost, lol.
I fail to understand why people think Dark Souls II is the most difficult of all Souls games, unless that's their first Soul's game, then yeah, lol.
But for me as far as difficulty: Demons's Souls > Dark Souls I > Minecraft > Dark Souls II.
Just kidding about the Minecraft part.
Emperor_Uriel
Member
Imru al-Qays;166706165 said:
This, to me, is the single greatest stretch of gameplay in any Souls game. The descent from Lower Undead Burg to The Depths to Blighttown, each area more twisted and dismal than the last.
The fact that it's punctuated by the immense triumph of ringing the second bell, followed immediately after by the revelation of the Demon Ruins and the knowledge that you can and will go farther down when the time comes.
It felt like a true, difficult journey in a way that few games ever capture. No fast travel, no replenishing your supplies, just a long road down.
I'm not sure about this. Playing the game for the first time back then I would have agreed while thinking 'damn thats punishing', but over the course of the game you can tell that it's often designed around this feature. Damage income is often adjusted for players with only 50% HP, making it pretty easy to do the game while not being a hollow. So I would really prefer the DaS system where it's the same (higher) difficult no matter if human or hollowed.
People found that hard? I must be too seasoned a souls vet.
Yeah the DLCs are among the hardest things in the series. Demon's Souls is overall the easiest game in the series and only has 2 challenging bosses (Allant and Flamelurker, and they are not even really hard if you're levelled up properly). Even without the DLC DaS2 is harder.
Yeah, this is true. I prefer the health system in DaS 1/Bloodborne.
I agree totally. I'm not sure why they've discarded that element of having to make the decision to persevere forward or journey back. It was a lot of fun to feel like you were being tugged both ways, and either choice could be satisfying in it's relief. Having to decide to trek back to the surface from blighttown in order to stock up on supplies or upgrade/repair a weapon was fun. It was fun escaping from the depths to cure your curse. And it was fun venturing down to the bottom of the world, knowing that every step forward would make it harder to get back. I think that's the true strength of Dark Souls exploration. The sense that you shouldn't go to these places, because you don't know how you'll get out or where you'll end up. The further you are from solace, the more exciting it is, and also the greater the feeling of relief and satisfaction when you do make it back.
Yes, I also completely agree with these sentiments. It's crucual the series re-discovers the importance of this feeling.
King Allant, the end-game boss? He's very easy, you just beat him up until he dies... lol
I love how people are saying that DaS2 is harder without actually making a case for it, I just love it, lol.
At this point i'm wondering how many people complaining about DS2 are those that push through the title in co-op and or lightning spear cheesed everything. Not everyone is for sure, but come on bosses like Fume, Smelter Demon, and Darklurker are just pushovers?
By the way, all the bosses in Dark Souls suck compared to Demon's. Has nothing to do with difficulty.
By the way, all the bosses in Dark Souls suck compared to Demon's. Has nothing to do with difficulty.
I agree completely.
But even Miyazaki seems to be stepping away from that design philosophy and using more Demon's Souls/DS2-esque exploration in Bloodborne.
This is what I want the most from Dark Souls 3.
Kind allant is more of an interactive narrative moment. Calling him a boss is pretty disingenuous. The poster you quoted clearly meant false king.
I love how people make posts like this disagreeing without actually making a case for it.
Fancy Clown
Member
Fully agree. This is why I always say I loved blighttown when so many hated it.
Schweinehund
Member
Ahem,
I went through most of the game with 8 adaptability and no points in atunement for my first character in my first playthrough. I didn't experience any issues with rolling at all. If anything I guess having played Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, I finally got gud at rolling.
Lots of ambushes but that doesn't make the game difficult, if anything frustrating. While enemies in DS2 scholar of the first sin have large agro ranges, you can pretty much just ignore them and run to a safe location. That's the thing with DSII level design, you can know and find safe spots even in your first time being in an area - there are places enemies won't come at you, and where you can heal safely. That's what I did earlier in the game. I didn't bother fighting the enemies. All I cared for was reaching the next bonfire, and getting into the boss fight. Bonfires are also placed so close to one another. It's also very linear, there's no real challange in finding bonfires in DSII. This wasn't the case in a place like Blightown in Dark Souls I or the Tower of Latria in Demon's Souls. Finding bonfires in Dark Souls and Demon's Souls was a challenge.
The lighting is important too. In Dark Souls II, areas are very bright, even in places where there isn't supposed to be any light sources, you can see. In Dark Souls 1 there's tomb of the giants where you can't see at all unless you have Cast Light or the Skull lantern. The path is also very treacherous. Those were really fun times, and I died many times there. In Dark Souls II you don't even need a torch to see in the dark places.
DLC? Hmm they seem to have only added mobs of enemies which can also be easily avoided save for a few. The part in the DLC where you get to fight three bosses at once was interesting. That was a real challenge playing solo no summons, but I figure out a way to cheese through it so the illusion of difficulty was lost, lol.
I fail to understand why people think Dark Souls II is the most difficult of all Souls games, unless that's their first Soul's game, then yeah, lol.
But for me as far as difficulty: Demons's Souls > Dark Souls I > Minecraft > Dark Souls II.
Just kidding about the Minecraft part.
I'll also add from my previous post that leveling in DS2 is so much easier, meaning that you need less souls to level up in comparison to DS1 and Demon's Souls. Most attributes that you level up give you health points (1 for most other than vitality), but you end up having more health, and with some decent equipment you can become a tank with the addition of the never ending life gems (which you can buy infiniteley. In contrast to Dark Souls 1 where you rely mostly on Estus Flask. In Demon's Souls you can always farm for moon grass which are like 100% drop rate from the hollows in the first area of boletarian place).
You also have a lot of shades, at least in the Dark Souls II Scholar of the first sin area, like Ellie Steelheart, Alfis, Jugo of Benhart, Bashful Ray, Lucatiel, etc... In contrast, Dark Souls I, the most summons you had were Solaire and the dude that kills the fire keeper. But you have to follow their story to be able to summon them. In DS2 FromSoft just said "let's just put a bunch of summons outside boss areas." I guess that would be something I would want in the next Dark Souls. If a player wants to summon an NPC, he/she has to follow said NPC's storyline (like Jugo, Venharl, Solaire) to summon them. Not just put out random NPC summons. I want the shades/phantoms to have a story and a motivation for fighting alongside the player.
How about if DS3 combined level up waifu with a physically connected hub area and no warping? Too much maybe? It would heighten the tension of exploration to crazy new levels, but might give players more reason to retreat than push forward. Maybe incentivise pushing forward with all your souls by having them double if you light a new bonfire
All you had to to do was creep up and aggro a few enemies at a time. So basically no different from any other Souls encounter.
How about if DS3 combined level up waifu with a physically connected hub area and no warping? Too much maybe? It would heighten the tension of exploration to crazy new levels, but might give players more reason to retreat than push forward. Maybe incentivise pushing forward with all your souls by having them double if you light a new bonfire
I was thinking of something similar as well. Not being able to warp and having a hub similar to Firelink Shrine or Cathedral Ward integrated in the world, but also not being able to level up at the bonfires. Instead you would have different characters scattered where you could level up (similar to Fire Keepers)... This would bring a new level of anxiety regarding losing souls and moving forward or going backwards.
I think DS1 is still the hardest game in the series. The DS1 enemy placement and limited flask made learning harder.
In term of difficulty: DS1>DeS>>DS2>My Magical Ponies>BB
But then again, every single release after DS1 will be a cakewalk.
I don't think the Souls series can be difficult anymore unless they go with more hidden and aerial ambush enemy placement.
In term of difficulty: DS1>DeS>>DS2>My Magical Ponies>BB
But then again, every single release after DS1 will be a cakewalk.
I don't think the Souls series can be difficult anymore unless they go with more hidden and aerial ambush enemy placement.
Yep, and this is the exact thing the 8-bit Zelda, Metroid, and Final Fantasy games had that none of their sequels or remakes quite delivered on. It's what Resident Evil 1 and Silent Hill 1 had but later survival horror games didn't. It's what Spelunky and some of the best roguelikes have. And this kind of seduction is about the most difficult thing for a game to pull off. The vast majority of games are easy-to-understand prostitutes, whether of the submissive of dominating variety, you know what you are paying for.
ShockingAlberto
Member
It's funny that people say Demon's is by far the hardest.
I played Dark, Dark 2, and Bloodborne before I played Demon's and it's thus far the easiest for me. Dark was the hardest.
I played Dark, Dark 2, and Bloodborne before I played Demon's and it's thus far the easiest for me. Dark was the hardest.
Thats the order I played the series in and also how I would rank the difficuty. Each subsequent game is easier than the last.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I made the case several times before, but I can't be arsed right now. These stupid "Dark Souls 2 vs everything and everyone else" discussions are wearying in the extreme.
Demon's Souls is the easiest because of the bosses. Most of the bosses in fact have long, slow attacks. They don't really hold a candle to what the series has as standard later on. The only boss that gets anywhere near as fast, intense and aggressive as something like the Blood Starved Beast or even the Pursuer is the False King, which is the "Final" boss of Demon's Souls.
The enemies in areas though are similar to Dark and Bloodborne.
I find Bloodborne just as hard as Dark Souls.
The enemies in areas though are similar to Dark and Bloodborne.
I find Bloodborne just as hard as Dark Souls.
Sanctuary
Member
For Dark Souls 2 supposedly being the "easiest" of the three, it was easily the most frustrating. Frustrating due to enemy placement and armor offering shit defense. It had more healing items up front, but the zerg mentality of enemy placement just made it feel inherently cheap compared to the first two games, regardless of which game had "harder bosses", as if bosses should be the only thing to consider. Also, with the "new feature" called Agility, you had to waste a bunch of levels just to get a similar roll to what you had at the start of the previous two games. For those that didn't turtle tank everything, this was a massive defensive nerf. Couple that with the shit hitboxes and it was a nightmare for the early levels.
I'd still rather replay Dark Souls 2 than Bloodborne though. Not that I didn't enjoy Bloodborne, but it just has a severe lack of diversity and there's really only three builds; STR, SKL, STR + SKL since ARC is complete trash no matter how high you raise it. Chalice Dungeons for "replay value" were a red flag when they were announced, and they turned out to be as expected; worthless.
After page 20 at most there's not really anything new to add to the actual topic until new information surfaces. So like most, it goes off into the ancillary.
I'd still rather replay Dark Souls 2 than Bloodborne though. Not that I didn't enjoy Bloodborne, but it just has a severe lack of diversity and there's really only three builds; STR, SKL, STR + SKL since ARC is complete trash no matter how high you raise it. Chalice Dungeons for "replay value" were a red flag when they were announced, and they turned out to be as expected; worthless.
After page 20 at most there's not really anything new to add to the actual topic until new information surfaces. So like most, it goes off into the ancillary.
FalsettoVibe
Member
How did this become a souls versus souls thread? Anywho I hope to see more of DS3 at E3.
mohsinkhan
Member
I dont care what franchises become annualized, as long as the quality of the games doesnt drop.
Some of the difficulty is perspective; your first souls game is generally going to be the hardest since you weren't prepared for it.
That said, I played Demons -> Dark Souls -> Dark Souls 2 -> Demons again -> Bloodborne
in that order and I found Demons to generally have the most difficult level design. With the others I was making consistently slow progress due to the bonfires and lamps, but with Demons it's very easy to attempt 5-2 a few times and make absolutely no progress. The bosses however are pushovers in Demons, whereas I found Dark Souls does quite well in that regard. I wouldn't say there is an overall "toughest" souls game though.
there are people who actually WANT that? its like "oh youre having trouble? here have more trouble". i dont know if that was in demons souls because i havent played it, but when i played through ds2 i didnt mind it much because
1) they gave you enough human effigys
2) the ring that decreased the amount of lost hp while hollow
i played through most of the game with that ring equipped and didnt even care. but if that were in bloodborne (my first souls game) i would have lost my god damned mind. i died SO MUCH in bb that if my hp were reduced to half just to add salt in the wound, i probably would have never finished it.
Dark 2 is clearly the hardest one.
Maybe some of the bosses ain't that hard -although there are a few that are no pushovers, even if we ignore broken stuff like blue smelter demon or ancient dragon-, but the enemy placement is by far the assholishest.
Every other game has areas that are p difficult. The descent to Blighttown, Shrine of Storms 2, the initial run through Central Yharnam, initial Nightmare of Mensis. But Dark 2 has them in spades. Unpatched Shrine of Amana, the run through Dragon Aerie and Shrine, No Man's Wharf. And then you consider than in NG+ the game adds more red phantoms and ads in bosses, it stands heads and shoulders above the rest. The real Dark 2 starts in NG+.
And that is before we take into account the DLC or Scholar. The DLC alone is harder than everything else in Dark 2 and the other games. Haven't gotten Scholar yet but I hear it is even harder.
I actually quite like the bosses that have helpers. Ruin Sentinels and Lost Sinner NG+ are great fights I helped dozens of people through. It's fun to keep track of multiple threats, and even more keep track of the health of the host, and run to them with a healing spell.
Demon becomes harder if you go out of your way and get the Black Phantoms, but it never reaches the steady difficulty of Dark 2. If you don't get Black Tendency, Demon is the easiest game out of the four. It is not helped by being a short game compared to the rest.
Bloodborne comes close in some of the chalice dungeons. Some bosses almost made me throw the towel. Wish I didn't need to keep grinding for more reagents to open further dungeons. Some of the difficult BB bosses are kind of broken. Bloodletting Beast has way too much speed and reach, Ebrietas has ridiculous reach with her tentacles. Not saying that D2 has no broken bosses, ancient dragon the main one.
Something that makes BB easier, is that there are few builds possible. So you never come across an area you built your character wrong for. Well, ignoring ill placement of level up stats, which are possible in the other games too. Main problem is whether to protect against poison or against frenzy or against regular damage. Secondary problem is whether to use a fast weapon or a slow one. And sometimes this is not even a worry, given how trick weapons work. The other games make you switch a ton of clothes, weapons, rings, etc. It is not uncommon to hear the advice to get naked for a boss. This is diminished in BB. The main advice is git gud and dodge better.
Difficulty wise: D2 DLC > Vanilla D2 > D1 > BT Demon > BB > Demon
Have to assume Scholar is above D2 DLC.
Oh that's interesting.
Maybe some of the bosses ain't that hard -although there are a few that are no pushovers, even if we ignore broken stuff like blue smelter demon or ancient dragon-, but the enemy placement is by far the assholishest.
Every other game has areas that are p difficult. The descent to Blighttown, Shrine of Storms 2, the initial run through Central Yharnam, initial Nightmare of Mensis. But Dark 2 has them in spades. Unpatched Shrine of Amana, the run through Dragon Aerie and Shrine, No Man's Wharf. And then you consider than in NG+ the game adds more red phantoms and ads in bosses, it stands heads and shoulders above the rest. The real Dark 2 starts in NG+.
And that is before we take into account the DLC or Scholar. The DLC alone is harder than everything else in Dark 2 and the other games. Haven't gotten Scholar yet but I hear it is even harder.
I actually quite like the bosses that have helpers. Ruin Sentinels and Lost Sinner NG+ are great fights I helped dozens of people through. It's fun to keep track of multiple threats, and even more keep track of the health of the host, and run to them with a healing spell.
Demon becomes harder if you go out of your way and get the Black Phantoms, but it never reaches the steady difficulty of Dark 2. If you don't get Black Tendency, Demon is the easiest game out of the four. It is not helped by being a short game compared to the rest.
Bloodborne comes close in some of the chalice dungeons. Some bosses almost made me throw the towel. Wish I didn't need to keep grinding for more reagents to open further dungeons. Some of the difficult BB bosses are kind of broken. Bloodletting Beast has way too much speed and reach, Ebrietas has ridiculous reach with her tentacles. Not saying that D2 has no broken bosses, ancient dragon the main one.
Something that makes BB easier, is that there are few builds possible. So you never come across an area you built your character wrong for. Well, ignoring ill placement of level up stats, which are possible in the other games too. Main problem is whether to protect against poison or against frenzy or against regular damage. Secondary problem is whether to use a fast weapon or a slow one. And sometimes this is not even a worry, given how trick weapons work. The other games make you switch a ton of clothes, weapons, rings, etc. It is not uncommon to hear the advice to get naked for a boss. This is diminished in BB. The main advice is git gud and dodge better.
Difficulty wise: D2 DLC > Vanilla D2 > D1 > BT Demon > BB > Demon
Have to assume Scholar is above D2 DLC.
Oh that's interesting.
The skeletons into turtles and red phantom in Forest after you get the key hahahah, my friend was playing for the first time and I told him to go there, was interesting.
I can't, I just can't play Scholar of the First Sin anymore. Uninstalled it, downloading vanilla again.
My difficulty ranking would be Dark Souls > Bloodborne > Dark Souls II > Demon's Souls, mostly because of the bosses. But Dark Souls II is tricky, because the game is an asshole. If you play it like your first playthrough, moving carefully and killing everything you encounter, the game is really easy compared to Dark Souls, because then the only real challenge are the boss battles, and there aren't many challenging boss battles in Dark Souls II (it's fine now with the DLC on that regard, I guess), but if you're trying to rush through the game and go from boss to boss, sorta in a speedrunning way, then Dark Souls II can be a nightmare.
I was so happy to have invincibility when opening shit back in Bloodborne.
My difficulty ranking would be Dark Souls > Bloodborne > Dark Souls II > Demon's Souls, mostly because of the bosses. But Dark Souls II is tricky, because the game is an asshole. If you play it like your first playthrough, moving carefully and killing everything you encounter, the game is really easy compared to Dark Souls, because then the only real challenge are the boss battles, and there aren't many challenging boss battles in Dark Souls II (it's fine now with the DLC on that regard, I guess), but if you're trying to rush through the game and go from boss to boss, sorta in a speedrunning way, then Dark Souls II can be a nightmare.
I was so happy to have invincibility when opening shit back in Bloodborne.
If I can make a character who controls exactly like a hunter from Bloodborne then I have no words to describe how awesome that would be. I hope that's made possible by utilizing whatever that new "swordfighting arts" mechanic is.
In the Souls games, finding new weapons as I made my way through them, a considerable number of which fit my playstyle, was one of the things that made those games really enjoyable. I had a dozen or so favourite weapons from DaS2 that I constantly switched between.
I know that their goal with the small selection of weapons in Bloodborne was to make each one of them feel unique while avoiding clutter. But the end result was me finding three or four weapons that fit my playstyle, only two of which I actually enjoyed wielding. So yeah I definitely welcome the fact they're adding ~100 new weapons, even if a few of them will definitely be broken as hell in the first few weeks
In the Souls games, finding new weapons as I made my way through them, a considerable number of which fit my playstyle, was one of the things that made those games really enjoyable. I had a dozen or so favourite weapons from DaS2 that I constantly switched between.
I know that their goal with the small selection of weapons in Bloodborne was to make each one of them feel unique while avoiding clutter. But the end result was me finding three or four weapons that fit my playstyle, only two of which I actually enjoyed wielding. So yeah I definitely welcome the fact they're adding ~100 new weapons, even if a few of them will definitely be broken as hell in the first few weeks
I was talking about False King Allant of course lol.
I explained times and times again in similar threads why DeS is the easiest game in the series but it pretty much boils down to the facts that it's pretty unbalanced (there are lots of way to become very OP), you get way too many healing items that are way too powerful, most bosses are just simplistic puzzles that are super simple once you figure them out (which isn't really hard), and some bosses suffer from severe path-finding/AI issues (like the maneaters). The difficulty increase in NG+ is also fairly minimal compared to DaS 2 for example.
The DaS 1/2 bosses on the other hand are more skill based on general — you need to learn their patterns, attack ranges, dodge timings, etc. Now I'm not saying that all the bosses in those two games are hard, that's quite far from the truth. But they do have more challenging bosses (examples for DaS1: Ornstein and Smough, Artorias, Manus, Kalameet, NG+ Four Kings. For DaS2: Smelter Demons, Dark Lurker, Burnt Ivory King, Fume Knight, Sir Alonne, Lud and Zallen (among others)).
If you simply look at the areas between bosses, DaS 2's are also harder. I've never had to kite/isolate enemies so much in any other game in the series. In general I can just roll in and start fighting a couple of them at once and making it out fairly unscathed. Good luck doing that in a lot of DaS 2 areas lol (especially the DLCs), enemies just gang up on you.
Also, SL1 runs are just way, way harder in DaS 2 than in any other game in the series (bar maybe Bloodborne, I've yet to beat
Ebrietas/Martyr Logarius/Gehrman
DaS 2's also got the shittiest healing items in the series. They heal you back slowly which increases your chances of getting killed. Running out of healing items has never been a big issue in this series, it's getting killed before you can heal that's the main source of difficulty.
Edit: it's also got the hardest NG+ mode since you get the usual increase in difficulty plus extra red phantoms.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I found myself nodding to every single thing you wrote. I've made similar arguments in the past but I couldn't be arsed to do so again, so thanks for saving me the trouble.
Wow, someone gets it. I thought I was alone on this.
KZXcellent
Member
The only thing I want for Dark Souls III is for Miyazaki to beat the guy who made the Fall Damage in DaS2 so ridiculous.
Even if you don't count easy exploits in Demon, it is still the easiest. The two bosses more given to exploits are also some of the harder ones (False King and Maneaters, and namely, abusing the bow and arrow), but doing them with melee/magic is still p feasible.
False King is prolly the harder of the two to do on a "fair" fight, but that's mostly cause he doesn't fit in the game. He reminds me a lot of Bleach's Ichigo in the Byakuya fight, or in the DS jump games. While the rest of the games have bosses similar to most of the Demon bosses, False King is never really copied. (The other bosses that aren't copied or even vaguely imitated fall in the gimmicky category, Dragon God and Storm Beast).
I think that FROM lost a lot of the fear about letting the player be ganged up. Demon and Dark are more careful about letting you kite people or just spacing enemies. Early Boletaria is a good lesson that the game will mostly space enemies, and when it doesn't, it's because you need to use chokepoints.
There are instances of asshole traps (the three knights in the undead parish come as an early example), but by that time in BB there are tons of those instances. And Dark 2 just abuses the trick of letting enemies fall behind you in the early game.
Demon wasn't that well balanced, so Shrine of Storms becomes really hard if you let yourself be followed by two of the armored skeletons and are in presence of a manta. But you quickly learn not to do that. Dark 2 sometimes does not give you that chance, there are parts where you are gonna get ganged up, period.
Which imho is fine. It is hard to make regular enemies that can give you trouble 1-on-1, and when they do, it looks like they just hit too hard or move too fast. Wish the enemies used the terrain better, though. They should try to surround you, try to take you out of cover, not get into range for no good reason, use more ranged, etc. Enemies in these games are kind of dumb. The NPC hunters in BB tho are a good upgrade on AI tho. Dark 2 Red Phantoms aren't completely stupid but the BB hunters would give them a run for their money.
Are people not experiencing Dark Souls fatigue yet? I mean Bloodbourne was it's own thing but the dlc/expansion hasn't even been shown yet and they are already working on the next souls game.
Don't get me wrong, I missed a lot of the choices in weaponry and fighting styles from the Souls games but if this ends up like Dark Souls 2 I might sit out on the next one. Especially after the changes to the re-release, taking out almost all the fun imo. I hope Myazaki can bring the charm back to the series, Demon's Souls was an amazing adventure. Loved unknowingly becoming someone else's boss. Best part of the info released so far is the inclusion of a story somewhat.
Don't get me wrong, I missed a lot of the choices in weaponry and fighting styles from the Souls games but if this ends up like Dark Souls 2 I might sit out on the next one. Especially after the changes to the re-release, taking out almost all the fun imo. I hope Myazaki can bring the charm back to the series, Demon's Souls was an amazing adventure. Loved unknowingly becoming someone else's boss. Best part of the info released so far is the inclusion of a story somewhat.
As long as they stay true to their 2 and a half year dev cycles then I doubt i'll become fatigued. People believe that DS3 is coming out early 2016 or something, which it most likely isn't. Holidays for sure.
Plus they change enemies a lot and even introduce new moves to some bosses. Really, it had the best NG+ in the series.
Even Bloodborne wasn't as fresh as I would have hopped. I enjoyed it a lot but yeah I'm getting a bit tired.