Відео

Chamber solution spoilers! I backed off from the high platform and placed the cube grabbing portal before bouncing off the gel back to the high platform. Fun level.

yeah fuck DD2 glad I didn't buy it

Hey I loved the idea of your map and used it in one of my maps just being the first move you should check it out it's called blue laser cubes the name is a wip

It’s so sad that to perform a technique witch we practice for 6 years probably, turning into this messy buttons layout… I really do miss quick swap…. being doing the delay one since it’s way easier, but no so fast sadge.

i miss this mode

best game ever, i have 2000+ hours ingame

I tell you why, there are No big boobas amd thicc thights mods in the second game

I love DD1 but I regreat buying and playing second game it was SO BAD. Every time when I lost I feelt like it's not my vault just stupid rng and game limitations. Stupid annoying design and mechanics every corner took all the fun. Just NO. And thoes DLC's that gives you classes present in first game eatch for the price of huge and excelent CC for first game what a joke.

Okay so... I absolutely LOVED the first game. I didn't even try the second. Why? The huge change in setting and the simplification of the core systems. They didn't iterate. They made an entirely different game. I like the Hamlet. I like the whole idea of brave (stupid) people coming to the hamlet seeking glory and treasure and finding horrors instead. It was a perfect "modern" take on the classic dungeon delver. YOU'RE ALMOST NEVER IN A DUNGEON in Darkest Dungeon 2.

the timing between crouching and swapping isn't precise at all, you just need to swap during the crouch animation to cancel it

Well Rare does it again

This review/comparison between the two games is terrible, not even mentioning the fact that the title is misleading compared to the video content. The way you discuss Darkest Dungeon 1 and imply that the dungeon adventures aren't important, while focusing on the hamlet as the core gameplay, is utterly misguided. It’s clear you don’t grasp what made DD1 great, something DD2 fails to replicate due to the developers' changes to the formula. The resolve tests in DD1 may be more random, but when they result in a positive outcome during dire situations, it’s absolutely incredible. DD2 lacks any comparable moments and represents a downgrade from the fun and engaging aspects of the first game. That’s on the developers for altering what made the original game exceptional. Unfortunately, DD1 was a lightningin a bottle , and it seems the developers aren’t capable of matching that level of quality anymore.

Antiquarian bad???

All the hate I've heard of is people bitching about it not being the same as the first... which is the dumbest argument ever. It's a sequel, its supposed to be different.

I am so glad the inventory management is more or less gone. That was the only thing i hated in dd1 ... except that stupid blood sucking mosquitos.

I love the game, but the gameplay loop of DD1 is more interesting. Hell, there's a fan made sequel currently in development called "Iron Crown Project." Its basically the first with dungeons and a hamlet, but with the token system and the regions of 2. It looks neat.

It works. You can trade accuracy for samples by increasing perceptron accuracy. Since our accuracy of Stream 4 is 100% we can freely adjust this to be just right. And just 29% perception accuracy gives you bronze.

People may gripe about it, and some criticisms may be valid, but I still enjoy the game, and I feel like that’s all thats important. There’s no point in playing if you aren’t having fun, and I’ve loved it.

i really like DD2 bc i started playing with the Darkest Dungeon Board Game and its like a weird darkest dungeon 1.5 mechanic wise. youre limited by four heros until one of them dies, skills can only be upgraded three times, split up into four major acts including The Darkest Dungeon, and more

I was a big fan of the first game, but combat in the second one feels like a straight up upgrade - so much so that it makes going back to the first feel frustrating. The random hit accuracy and enemies with over 70% PROT in the first game just don’t feel good anymore, when you know what DD2 has. On top of that, stalling tactics are much harder to pull off in the second game, so you don’t feel bad about not fully healing your stress and health at the end of every fight since finishing the fight asap is usually the best approach. The gameplay loop in DD2 feels more streamlined. I never really enjoyed the grind to resolve level 6 in the first game, just to get to the hardest content. DD2 takes a more direct approach: “Here’s a big challenge, go for it champ. You failed? No problem, here’s some meta progression-now try again.” This approach keeps the game from feeling grindy, even though it takes about the same time to beat. One thing I really appreciate in DD2 is the short-term nature of good trinket/hero combos. In DD1, getting that perfect combo felt great at first, but it loses its thrill because you keep it for so long. In DD2, however, those combos only last for a short while, which keeps it exciting and allows for more powerful combinations without trivializing the game. Planning an entire run around one specific trinket just isn't realistic. Also, also I didn't even check the reviews before buying the game, but 75% feels criminally low for what the game is.

Feels like they pivoted to a slay the spire type game, you could even say whatever you gather is basically you building your deck, both games are even turn based as well. Nothing wrong with that, I love slay the spire, but exploring the dungeons was actually quite atmospheric, managing resources and the stress system was quite clever on their part. Also feel way less punishing than losing a 3 hour run, that's harsh as f.

I don't think the roguelike aspect of the game fits well with the aesthetic Red Hook has built with the series. A major part of DD1 was the XCOM style team/champion building. You take your units out on expeditions and if they survive they get stronger. You start to cherish your characters and take caution to ensure they make it back to the Hamlet. In DD2 that aspect of the game is gone. You start each run with a clean slate team and don't get the time to grow attached to them or watch them get more powerful. You simply watch the "idea" of the character get stronger. The backstories are honestly the best part of the game, but again, your not really getting attached to that character, only their avatar more or less. Maybe Red Hook just missed the mark on the roguelike aspect, or maybe the game just doesn't work as effectively in that genre. I give credit to the team for trying something different instead of making the sequel just a rewash of the first, but I don't think DD2 will be remembered as well as the first. I hope that their next title takes into mind what made the first game such a success and try to push that concept further.

lol. i also got all the achievements except for the antiquarian one. that class sucks balls.

I didn't even hear that they made a second one.

cUZ Iz not good

DD2 released on Console recently, I haven't stopped playing ever since. 120 hours in and I love DD2 format more than DD1, just wished there were more characters in DD2.

Because it's not as good as DD1 lol. That's really it. It sucks when a sequel that should have been a home-run is a disappointment. 1) It has far less content than the first game. I know they're adding more, but every class from DD1 should be in DD2 at baseline, especially something like Crusader which is core. There are less bosses and the bosses they do have are worse. 2) The game just feels like a grind without "real progression". It feels like you have to lose several times until you get the upgrades to actually win. Each run takes WAAAAAY too long; 2 hours is unacceptable for how little progress it feels like you make. You can't just do one dungeon like DD1. It also just wastes your time. The stagecoach driving should have been cut; you often are waiting 1-2 minutes before any "real" gameplay comes up. I get they put effort into it, but sometimes good game design is cutting elements that detract from the core game even if you put a ton of effort into it. 3) There is a massive drop in store/atmosphere. The biggest difference is DD1 has the Hamlet. The world feels lived in and it feels like you are slowly progressing forward. The bosses are a result of the failure of the ancestor and you slowly take them all out. There is narration on each and every one of them and I enjoyed learning more about the Hamlet and the surrounding area. The world is dark, but your characters can overcome it. Should a character die, it often is a huge loss and feels impactful. I feel nothing when a DD2 character dies or comes close to dying. I don't care. I cared a ton about my DD1 characters who I handcrafted from nobodies into heroes.

The part about how rng can screw you over in XCOM is why my turn-based shooter has a different system that eliminates rng and gives you more control.

Part 1. It's interesting that you compared X-Com with Darkest Dungeon - I never thought of this comparison but yes, why is that one game and the other have both - really crappy rng that can ruin a critical mission with a single unexpected fatality? But to be honest, the original X-Com had a safety feature - much more soldiers - in DD you get just 4 guys, and you can't really have multiple of the same type of character - since it will ruin your balance and flexibility in combat - each character has a specific role and a place - that is why shuffling is such a hit to your efficiency and you need to make the most count of out every character. In X-Com - you don't really do that - each soldier is expendable - and you get a lot more of them (even in the new X-Com games you start with just 4 guys, but you can quickly increase that number - which in DD you can never do) also - the difference from a newbie soldier to an experienced one is not that big, even newbies can kill aliens with the right equipment, survive hits with the right armor or cover, and resist panic - all you need is to strategically place them and be able to quickly react to threats... and the same mission can be done in so many ways and still be one - you can go slow, inching yourself forward with a cover system, you can go solo - just one guy at a time as a scout who discovers aliens and quickly runs back to your well placed teammates - you can go with a sniper squad and just use a spotter and then absolutely destroy aliens (my favorite strategy is using multiple snipers 3-4, placing them in good positions and just killing aliens left and right - snipers can get extra shots after a kill, enabling them to deal with multiple aliens in a round ). That is why - in X-Com even if you fail - you can try again without really any issue - sure it hurts to lose experienced soldiers, but rarely one or two deaths is the complete failure of a mission , and even - deaths during a mission are to be expected - that is why you get a big roster of soldiers, and just equip them and sent them out to battle. X-com also has a few safety features - like saving and reloading, difficulty scaling from begginer to expert and the option to restart a failed mission - these are all there to keep the players from rage quitting. I wouldn't mind DD so much if it also had features for newbie or less experienced players - but DD has one difficulty for all players and there is no save and reload option. Also it tells you right off the bat - you will fail at some point, no matter how skilled you are - you can just draw a boss monster during a run, and get completely wrecked - which never really happens in X-Com - unless you count alient leaders but their presence is to be expected and even sought after for some valuable tech and info. The bad RNG and multiple stats and even low character count - are all acceptable - it's the vision of the game designer and he is entitled to, but there are two key differences that make DD in my opinion a bad faith game and one that is less fun to play:

I thought the first one was crap. Very much regret backing it. Guess people caught on with the second.

If you don‘t like RNG, play Chess or Go 🤣 This is far more frustrating, because with no RNG, every loss is a skill issue, it is 100% on you!

Because it sucks, i know, crazy concept

I don't like RNG is not an objective argument. How about all bosses of DD2 relying "hit all the party attack" boss design? Being samey is objectively a negative.

Because the devs apparently never knew what made DD1 so good. It had nothing to do with “rogue this or that”, it was an XCOM kind of game. You had your hub that you upgrade, you went on missions to level up and get resources to invest in your characters and hub to eventually beat the 50+ hour long campaign. DD2 threw all of that out the window in favor of turning the game into “Slay the Darkest Spire”. With a very “video gamey” feeling meta progression, short campaigns and the worst of all, you don’t bond with your characters and create stories with them, they just disappear after the run ends. Let me say that DD2 isn’t a bad game, it’s just one I’m not interested in. I wish they remade the first one with 2’s graphics.

They removed multiple of the core elements that made DD1 unique and original and replaced them with core mechanics we saw again and again since Slay the Spire.

I really liked upgrading the hamlet in the first game. I also really enjoyed keeping a roster of heroes. Slowly leveling my favourites, combining some heroes in different ways depending on the fight etc and collecting all the different trinkets. Since none of that is in the second game, it's not a game for me. I'm sure it's still a great game, just not for me.

I agree with the author's point, the game is just different, it's not better or worse in general. I enjoyed them both, and I'll definetely return to DD2 when some more major updates and DLCs come out.

I’m loving DD2. Huge long time fan of the first one, but I’ve had such a blast playing the second. There’s a place for both in my library. Long campaign format vs quick run format.

It's basically Slay the Spire but in Darkest Dungeon. Unfortunately, it's not even half the roguelike of StS. What a shame.

Not hating it, kinda liking it, but the problem of the game is his name...DD2 is just not remotely as fun as DD1 was, in any way... Now, it's a good "somewhat-DD-like" game, but they just should have put another skin on it and call it differently. The first one had that indie "little game" vibe, easy to pick and play for a couple of minutes in the train or what... it's a shame the game never had an Android release, it was good on PS Vita (Sony should revive it or do another one with better marketing, now that they're untouchable with the PS5) and iPad. I also prefer the roster in DD1, and to me the Flagellant being blight-focused instead of blood just doesn't make any sense, + no long-range unit (arbalest, musketeer), no Hound Master, no Antiquary... DD2 is OK, but DD1 was just much more fun and memorable.

Its really simple why i kike dd1 but not dd2, all redhook had to do was make darkest dungeon again, instead they made a completely different game and said it was Darkest Dungeon. While dd2 isnt BAD at all its just not the darkest dungeon i fell in love with so i had 0 interest

No one like marathon a game like this,in dd1 each map was tense and full of suprise and didn't fatigue u like dd2

Why people hate Epic Games? Check some old news buddy

Just one comment on RNG in general. We always seem to remember those shots that miss that really screwed us over, we forget about all the shots that hit, even the amazing ones. But yeah X-com titles (even the originals) have always had complaints about the RNG. And for the record, I think ragequitting x-com once in a while is just part of the whole experience heh.

“Darkest Dungeon’s combat is an improvement compared to Xcom 2” Bruh…

They guy on the thumbnail looks like Roman from Armed and Dangerous.

EGS.

I like DD2 but I think its cause it's so different from the first one.

DD2 biggest problem is they tried to make a rougelike out of a series that doesn't lead itself well to it. The game just feels hollow a lot of the time as you run through similar marks each run.

Only thing I hate is how they handled the affinity system with in game mechanics, you pick a hero > you pick a path > you make a build that synergizes with character > system locks down completely unrelated skills you didn't even choose or used once in the entire run, making the hero useless, obliterating it's playstyle