Dark souls 2 discourages shield use, yet is the only souls game that contains a ring capable of reducing the stamina drain from blocking hits? They must really not want you to use those 70 shields they created.
Bat Sure, the game with the broken dodge is the one that discourages shield use. For those who don't know DS2 has an stat called agility, it sole propouse is to yet introduce further artificial difficulty and make the dodge not-crap, because in DS2 they intentionally decided to make the dodge crap by removing the standar invencibility frames that every soul game uses on it's rolling animation meaning than in order to get the standard frames that every game in the series uses you have to waste time and souls into leveling this pointless stat. Before that rolling is not reliable and the best way to defend yourself is with a shield, and even then there's no "proper way to play", just like Harris you didn't bring up any evidence just treated as fact your opinion of playstyle and just like Harris lie about the effectiveness of the shield because literally 10 minutes in you can find 100% damage blocking ones in the game.
Bat I'm sorry, but you're full of shit. Everything from the shield design contests, to the number of shields, and even the accessories you can use to make them more effective suggests shields are very much a part of DaS2's core design. You can't just state that the game was "meant to be played" one way, ignore all of the evidence that suggests otherwise, and then expect people to take your opinion seriously.
Bat LoL the same argument can be done for DS1 about early games areas being easy to dodge hell even in 3, that's not a DS2 exclusive thing speedruns of even Demon Souls show players sprinting across the map with no equipment dodging everything this is not a thing DS2 started at all. Also ADP not broken? lol ADP is the reason most of the broken hitboxes of the game become even more annoying, DS2 is the only roll in the series in which you can get hit mid roll because there are points in the rolling animation in which the Iframes dictated by ADP ran out and you get hit even when the enemy finished it's attack animation all that BS because they decided that rolling should not be a test of reflexes and timing but arbitrary farming, all ADP did was intruducing a pointless stat, add even more artificial difficulty and making a (unpleasant) chore out of farming to increase said stat, if ADP was such a great idea then ¿why Dark Souls 2 is the only game with the cripple dodge and the ADP stat? Also you mention 25 point as if that was a fair small amount, it isn't that's literally softcapping a pointless porly designed gimmick when instead I could be softcapping an actual stat like DEX even 15 is pushing it far, how about removing the stat and actuallly let the rolling function like every other game in the series? So yeah if you ask me what's the best method of avoiding DMG in general in DS2 is a shield, because I' m not gonna depend on a roll that's so poorly design that it makes it seems you can be hitted at random. "But you can level it up" or better yet I can play any other game in the series and actually make an enjoyable no-shield run because all of them have a proper dodge function and I don't have to deal with a pointless stat and comicaly bad hitboxes.
It's very ironic that Harris hates shields even though he loves DS2 which made dodge rolling way less viable than shielding until the character's stats are increased.
What I find weird is that, in his Bloodborne video, he said Ocarina of Time was one of his favourite games for a long time. You know; a game where the hero's signature weapon set is a sword and shield. How does he think shields are passive and that you shouldn't use them if he's played Zelda games?
@@Speedyeep Not too sure about that. Harris footage is with the red bars. Pretty sure he played the knight with battle axe without shield for the most part.
Also, I think Harris' point about Dark Souls 2 "inspiring many of the brilliant choices in Bloodborne" completely falls flat when you actually realize that both of the games were being worked on at the same time, but Bloodborne took longer, presumably because Miyazaki actually wanted to iron out the wrinkles, because he seems to be very deliberate when crafting his games.
+Elvick 'would anyone actually think it was Dark souls'...the game is nearly completely identical in every way so I have a suspicion it would've been obvious to just me. Just like Bloodborne is clearly also just Dark souls despite the name change, From's souls games are more similar to each other than Assassin's creed sequels even if you argue there's a big variance in quality.
7dayspking There are a ton of CoD RIP offs that use its control scheme, color palate, weapon system, story beats, world design, and interface. But it's still pretty obvious to tell a real CoD game apart from an imitation by the level of polish in it (it's the only thing they have going for them these day tbh) The same thing with ds2. Everything feels so off, if only just a little, that it feels more like an imitation than the real thing. If it was called something else I would have confused it for a send up like Ni-oh.Also, bloodborne is just dark souls?Lol, kay.
@@ImaTroper 'other games rip off cod' I don't think I agree, so many games were doing what COD has been for the last decade since before and there's so many shooters it's damn near impossible to tell which is a rip off of what. However I agree, games like COD are a dime a dozen just like the old platformers and now 'looter' games. Are any of From's games amazingly polished, detailed or 'finished' looking? Not until Dark souls 3 and maybe Bloodborne I don't think. In Some areas Dark souls 2 looks like more effort taken, the game actually runs unlike the original, the world looks slightly more detailed than the lifeless cardboard world in the original Dark souls (and to a lesser extent Demon Souls.), improve animations, less broken hit detection (from my experience.). What's 'missing' people seem to b arguing is 'artistic inspiration' and coherence. I'm happy From look to be doing something else with their new title and actually putting some effort in, I was close to grouping them with the developers of the Dynasty warriors franchise. I don't think I could confuse Ni-Oj (having never played it to be fair.) for a Souls game, looks like far more effort and care was put into that at least by the worker bees responsible for the basic engine, gameplay and visuals.
They were being developed at the same time, the reason why BloodBorne released later is because they spent more time working on it. I doubt the BB developers were peeking over the shoulders of the DS2 developers and saying “oh, that looks good, let’s use it in our game.”
"Parrying only came into its own in Bloodborne, which handed you a weapon specifically for doing it..." Dammit, he's right! If only there was some sort of weapon that was specifically designed to parry with. Like a kind of dagger that can be held in your left hand to parry with, like a PARRYING DAGGER or something.
@@fruitfulmink1326 i would argue that rapier is better where it can do decent damage and the parrying window while not large are tight enough. Plus style points.
@@davids7646 TBH I was taught how to parry with weapons in DS1 with that damn dagger; it'd never occurred to me to try dual wielding before that, but when I found a parrying dagger I was like "you wot mate? I can use daggers to parry? WAIT, can I use WEAPONS TO PARRY!?" I then proceeded to murder the stupid assassins before the Capra Demon with it (seriously, fuck those guys ¬¬) and fell in love completely with dual wield parrying... That was the point at which I started over for a dodge+parry focused character instead of the tank I'd been playing xD
The Heater shield is the embodiment of the player in DS1. It's tiny, it's scarred, it's beat to hell, but it keeps going, and it does it's job until the end. That shield alone has so much personality, it's small, it blocks 100% physical, it's had blows mean enough to dent it, but it doesn't give up. Whatever hit it would have been absolutely fatal to the user.
and even further, its the only 100% block shield with an 8 str requirement. the lowest your strength could ever be in ds1 was 9. it is a shield that literally every single starting class can use right off the bat, and is sold by the first (second if you found rickard) merchant in the game. it is Training Wheels, by design.
Can I just say that we're in part 6 and Harris has BARELY talked about why Dark Souls 2 is even good? It should really be named "why every other game is shit."
@@void735 It's probably because even he couldn't;t ignore some of Ds2's blatant issues so he instead denied their existence and proceeded to bash Ds1 for doing worse. That's like comparing yourself to the school bully in terms of personality. "Well, he beats up more people than I do! So stop criticizing me! " Although I do think Ds1 is much better than the average school bully, you get my point.
I'm a simple, boring guy: Final Fantasy 4 was my first RPG, and for some reason the image of the shield-carrying Paladin stuck with me. For the first time playing something, I will ALWAYS pick a Sword-and-Board class, if it's an option, barring a few exceptions. The only times I think I ever went against this was 1) When I played WoW, where the first class I made was a Blood Elf Hunter, because all my friends who nagged me to play with them said they were playing Horde, and 2) When I played Guild Wars 2 and made a Sylvari Mesmer, because I liked the idea of the "plant elf people" and the game mechanics of the Mesmer were unlike anything I had ever seen before. I haven't played the Souls games, yet, but when I do, I will probably make a sword and shield carrying fellow in armor, because that's how I'm wired. And no matter what Harris says, I will never see that as me "playing the game wrong."
I have the same. I like the idea of being the vanguard, the guy standing in front sacrificing himself just so people can return home and tell of my bravery (a bit to much roleplaying? Sorry there xD). I like being the tank. Hiding behind a shield, having a HP bar bigger than my ego and soaking hit after hit while retaliating whenever possible... Yea that's how I play Darksouls, any (MMO)RPG or table top games like DND. BTW werent Mesmers also able to wear a shield, granting them pretty strong defensive skills? I might be wrong, haven't played GW2 in years and was more of a staff Mesm myself since I loved the concept of applying a shitload of debuffs
Yes, actually. In the first expansion "Heart of Thorns" Mesmers got an "Elite build" called the Chronomancer, which changes their playstyle. They get a shield which gives them two abilities: A bubble block which creates a new clone every time they're struck, and a shield bash that creates an energy wave that can paralyze enemies, while simultaneously speeding up allies' attacks.
Dude you have to play the first Dark Souls then. Is like THE GAME to do what you say. DS3 is a bit bullshit to play like that because they nerfed shields and armor a lot that armor almost did nothing, but DS is perfect for that.
I'm just like you in that regard. My favorite class/job of all-time is the Dragoon and FF4 was the first time I saw the class with Kain being one of my all-time favorite characters. Because of characters like him and games like Legend of Dragoon, I pretty much always play Dragoon style (well, FF Dragoon style at least) with spears/lances if they're available.
With hbombs logic I might aswell say something like: You can equip a shield in both hands, therefore dark souls must want me to dual-wield shields. Wich i absolutly would.
@@ulrichweiss9912 Well it was a massive mistake. I can understand why he thought it would work. He had conquered most of Europe at that point and didn't realize The Russians care about the motherland more than they care about their own life and didn't realize just how insane the weather could get there.
Wait did he just argue that Dark Souls 2 was the print and standard from which Bloodborne was built from? Wasn't Dark Souls 2 a game which Miyazaki literally didn't work on or want to be a part of, is evidently not fond of and pretends doesnt exist? That's the game Miyazaki based Bloodborne, which started in development either around the same time or *before* Dark Souls 2?
What's worse is Miyazaki specifically didn't work on DS2 because he was working on BB at the time. Which, for many fans at the time, was a HUGE red flag.
@@HoHhoch What? The man known for preferring to take time to handcraft levels and enemies and the like all the way down to attack animations didn't want anything to do with Spam Souls 2?
The funny thing is, despite all the people like Hbomber raving about how good and how criminally underrated DS2 is, the first thing you'll notice upon loading it up is that it's immediately much more clunky than BB and DS3, and even DS1. DS1's feels like it was by design. DS2's clunk is simply poor design and quite possibly some poor programming as well. My first thought upon beginning the game was that this can't be by the same people. It's immediately a poor imitation. But I definitely understand Hbomber's desire to desperately defend something even though it's bad. I was young and ignorant once too.
Bloodborne doesn't encourage shields because it's thematically different than Dark Souls. Dark Souls is a grimdark medieval setting, Bloodborn is a grimdark Victorian game with guns. On top of that, Bloodborne gameplay is around quick and aggressive play, while Dark Souls game play favors deliberate, strategic, and smart play. Dark Souls and Bloodborne are similar games, but they are very different thematically, which affects gameplay, which affects equipment choice.
I dunno, some places in DS2 (shrine of Amana, for example) are such total BS even if you have a shield and good armor, that you can't really be blamed for using a summon to get it over with.
Either that, or if he really hates shields, he could've at least learned how to play more efficiently when two-handing his weapons by now. 3 games in and he's relying on summons.
MauLer, I want to thank you for this series of videos criticizing Harris. I had forgotten about his video defending DKS2. I have to admit that I really did enjoy DKS2 but still pales in comparison next to DKS1 for me. I understood the critiques of DKS2 and agreed with most of them. I enjoyed Mathewmatosis' critique very much for example. I was sad though for all the hate that DKS2 was receiving and so found myself watching Harris' video in defending DKS2 for a refreshing perspective on DKS2. I was unable to finish his video and his smugness turned me off as well. His defenses were so extremely subjective that it annoyed me to no end. Your video series pointing out Harris' shortcomings and hypocrisy was wonderful to experience. You articulated what I felt while watching his video flawlessly. I attempted to watch a different video of his(I forget what the video was about) but again, I was unable to finish the video and I found myself purposely avoiding watching any video of his henceforth. Thank you again for these videos.
"The enemies fall down in a protracted animation and stay there for ages while they wait for you to capitalize. This is in a word, encouraging." This is in a word, babying.
It’s also extremely annoying because it means you can’t instantaneously riposte, you have to wait for them to have completed an animation, which means it’s far easier to be prevented from riposting if there are multiple enemies, because you could easily parry one, then not be allowed to riposte for a second or so, and in this interval be hit, forcing you to defend yourself, thus preventing the riposte. It’s a good thing the enemies are generally alone, and not in groups of three to six... Oh, wait -_-
@@nathanjora7627 yeah, shield breaks and backstabs, despite how fucky they are, are more viable. And not every enemy uses a shield or can be backstabbed.
Sirinterweb Yeah. Although I’m not sure what you mean by guard breaks ? I really liked how shield breaks allowed you to riposte in DS3, especially with the weapon arts that allow you to guard break (especially since I suck at parties in DS3 >
I find it incredibly narcissistic considering that having taken a concentration in Game Design at my University, the idea of teaching players through mechanics and set/level design is a premise as old as the NES and Super Mario Bros. As games got more complex and gained mechanical depth with technology and simply time passing this extended from how to respond directly to obstacles to a mentality for more broad/abstract problems, but it's not something he coined beyond the title. It's not something the Soulsborne series even invented or popularized, it's just an existing skill of game design that it uses to great effect.
I don't think he's aware that this concept already exists and is called game design... -_- To quote my former teacher in game design : One of the main purpose of game design and game designers is to teach and condition the player how to play the game and interact with its different systems. God damn that guy is so moronic it's almost painful.
Wait ... the first time I heard him say that, it sounded like he was saying Bloodborne was the first game to implement "play conditioning" (which in itself is quite the incredible claim), but now that I listen to it again, yeah, he's literally saying that _his own video_ about Bloodborne _invented_ this concept. _Holy shit._ This isn't a complicated idea either, teaching someone how to play through the game's mechanics has been around since games and is arguably the core of game design as a whole. Watch Egoraptor's breakdown of Megaman X. Watch literally any breakdown of SMB 1-1. Go to the library and read any book on game design 101. I am blown away by how ignorant this man is. God damn.
@@papershadow Yeah, super mario bros (the one from 1984 or something) already very obviously (back in the day being subtle wasn't needed) teaches you things in the first level. It's one of the defining strenghts of nintendo games. Their ability to have natural tutorials that children(target group) won't recognize so they aren't pulled out of the game. I remember seeing an amazing video that shows how in nintendo games they always have like 3 variations on a challenge. The tutorial which is completely safe. Then the challenge where you can die. Then the challenge again but with a difficult curve ball thrown in. Most average players can learn how to do variation 2 and 3 before they even have to do them and they won't notice it.
When Harris comments that "the Blueprint for Bloodborne was DS2" pretty much confirms the lack of research he did (as if "You can't even parry with two-handed in DS1" wasn't enough). DS2, DS3 and Bloodborne were in production at practically the exact time, that's why they were able to realse them anually (2014 -> DS2, 2015->BB & 2016-> DS3) BB and DS3 were Directed by Miyazaki while DS2 by someone else and Miyazaki comented once that the combat for BB was inspired by players playing DARK SOULS 1 in an unusual aggresive manner (AKA no shield runs that "they totally did not had", parry-blocking and speed running). Miyazaki had nothing to do with the development of DS2 and DS2 could not be a direct inspiration because they were both made by entirely different teams and were made at practially the same exact time. Not to mention every clever & FUNCTIONAL idea from DS2 was in fact carried to DS3 which include: the expanded inventory slots, the UI layout, being able to revert human (or in this case kindled ash) without needing a bonefire and the estus shards. That's it. Maybe bonfire ascetics would have been cool, but can live without them.
Nah, using weapon movesets properly regardless of which hand they're equipped in is pretty good. Also, being able to parry when 2 handed is cool. Parrying with a Greatsword is just amazing. Another thing that is good imo is the small white soapstones, those are more for players who need humanity fast rather than for helping beat a boss. It's just another option. And no I'm not shilling for DkS2. These are just the different things it had that I thought were good.
While bonfire asthetics would be cool i fear they could ruin leveling progression, in ds2 you can farm giant lord 4-5 times and be entirely overleveled for the rest of the game. If you carry this over to ds3 with yohrm the same could be repeated ruining the challenge for the remaining game
I could never really "get" parrying in Dark Souls 2. DS1 felt very natural, you press the button and almost instantly get your parry frames. You line the button press with your enemy's attack, and you're golden. It didn't feel easy, but it was something I knew I could become good at, and eventually did. DS2 on the other hand, seems to have too much of a delay, or maybe I can't define understand the parry frames well enough. It seems like I'm parrying "in advance" of an enemy strike, instead of as a reaction. I also think the enemy falling on his back just because you bashed his sword away is a bit silly, but that, as well as this entire comment, might be entirely subjective.
You're not the only one I felt the same way, I was parrying in advance of the enemy attack and I just didn't like it as I didn't find it to be THAT good so I just stopped doing it. Reminds me of Nioh's parry system but at least those parries do more than just open up for a ripost.
Ironically, the only enemies in DS2 that I can parry consistently are the npc phantoms. No idea why. I will say the addition (I think it was new) of shield breaking kind of replaced parrying for me. Its sad, while I prefer the other games, I still enjoy DS2 very much, but people like Harris make me not want to discuss it with others.
This is absolutely hilarious because normally a comment like this would just be considered a meaningless playground insult but in the context of Hbomb, literally the entire first segment of the video was him explaining that the reason he doesn't like Estus healing is because he's almost comedically atrocious at using it
"bloodborne encourages offensive play" i mean, yeah. and? its a different IP made for different reasons, why wouldnt it be different? bloodborne wants you to be quicker because its different to dark souls, if dark souls was that fast they would slow it down to change up the gameplay. how is this meant to prove his point?
@@Weldedhodag So wrong to see bloodborne as the next step. If you inspect dark souls 1 and bloodborne very closely you can easily see that they are laterally(sidegrades) removed. The only things bloodborne improved on objectively(this is the important bit) was graphics(although ds1 artstyle is my favorite) and tons of small QoL changes that Harris probably doesn't fucking notice because he only scratches the surface. I was so dissapointed by bloodborne (played it after ds1,ds2,ds3 for context) because it used the teleport in one of the worst possible ways. I get what it was meant to evoke (you go back to the dream/wake up) but in practice it was annoying as fuck.
@@taitia8619 not really since the rally system promotes something opposite of what dark souls 1 was about. Like the rally system is cool but it wouldn't fit in dark souls 1 at all. That's what I meant by lateral. Most stuff doesn't translate. Cuz Bloodborne and dark souls 1 were supposed to be viewed as fully independent games but I think many people missed that point.
@@tomvandalen2212 I definitely agree that the rally system would not work well in DS1, I just meant that some cool new ideas came out of Bloodborne. I see what you mean about them being their own independent games, but I disagree that the only improvement that came out of Bloodborne was the updated graphics (though I also 100% agree on how terribly they utilized the teleport).
@@TheStraightestWhitest I could see older guns like an Arquebus as a weapon in a Souls game, since the level of technology is vaguely 16th Century. In a Souls game, I imagine it would be a powerful ranged weapon that ignores armour, but would only get one shot before needing to reload and would have a reasonably long reload animation; making it risk vs reward.
It's funny looking back at this now that Elden Ring is out, in which they added even more reasons to use shields. You can now counter after blocking a hit with the shield, which is a really nice addition. And of course some shields have special abilities.
I was actually having this same thought. No one will ever come back and examine these arguments. Not to mention the No shield argument has always been stupid as hell as the devs intended you to use them. They’re in the game for a reason. They don’t want you to use machine guns, so they’re not in the games.
Wait, did he just say that the parrying sound is difficult to distinguish from the sounds of combat? It is quite literally the easiest sound in the game to recognize, except maybe the sound of your death.
the whole bit on parrying left me just a little bit angry, like he is blatantly misrepresenting dark souls 1, like I get that he does this a lot it seems in this video, but this is so easy to fact check you can literally do it within 5 minutes of dark souls. Im sorry HBomb but just because you suck at dark souls 1 doesn't make it bad, maybe you should git gud
Whats interesting about the whole "dark souls 2 doesn't promote shield use" argument, is that Dark Souls 2 literally had a shield design contest before the game came out. If the game, or the developers, were trying to de-emphasize shield usage in the game, I dont think they would design a whole community contest around it.
Dark souls 1 - Parried like a king up to Gywn. Dark Souls 3 - Parrying was difficult but oh so rewarding to leave Pontiff Sulyvahn and Champion Gundyr on their knees. ... Dark Souls 2? Why even bother when (1) it takes ages for an enemy to be open to the riposte, (2) in that time frame you'll just be beaten to death by the enemy spam, and (3) oh yeah, that's a thing now, because s don't exist during many animations - something that didn't return to Dark Souls 3. While I never used a shield in DS3 and learned to utilize it when needed in DS1 outside of parries, Dark Souls 2 somehow managed to bungle all preferences in one swing. Stamina is the foundation to the issue with shields, being both too scarce and used up too much for proper defensive, blocking play. Given the number of enemies in DS2, only a fool relies entirely on blocking for all situations as you'll be rapidly guard broken. Meanwhile, rolling is initially handicapped - to use Harris' wording but in a correct sense - by having s tied to agility, which is tagged onto the adaptability stat. It takes an egregious number of levels to ever reach the same efficacy as DS1, for no good reason other than seemingly the developers' misunderstanding of the crucial aspects of the original. On the surface, separating vitality for equip load and the possibility of a defensive play style through heavier armor, while offering adaptability as a counter makes perfect sense. However, even the most upgraded armor is insufficient for what the game throws at you, and you're not supposed to be able to block everything, either. Rolling was a fundamental part of the original, only to be needlessly gimped, which only limits the player in contrast to Harris' whole point on the glory of DS2. All one has to do is look at Dark Souls 3 and what stayed - it certainly wasn't adaptability. It's inane to paint DS2 as this flawless gem for the sake of being a contrarian, as though the game is being bullied and needs a white knight. Dark Souls 2 is by no means an awful game, and as someone who does overall enjoy it alongside the other titles in the seties, it is also a bit of a cunt that deserves that lashing it gets from the community.
It's actually even worse than Hbomb acting like his "play conditioning" is a trademark of his when others have better terms for it. Play conditioning isn't even his term to begin with. It's been around practically sense the dawn of critical conversation on games. SMB did play conditioning in the first level. Despite the fan-bred masturbation on Dark Souls's near-divine gameplay, the complexity of the game mechanics (here defined by the relative difficulty of the risk/reward precautions) is very minimal. Shields disincentivize use of the dodge move, which, by requiring clear read and response, is probably the most common source of complexity in the game. This is likely what Hbomb is trying to say, he's just bad at it. It's like what you were saying with the summoning mechanics: summoning breaks certain aspects of the gameplay completely, to the point where almost nothing is left. The defense that could be made from there is, of course, quantify how much more complex dodging is compared to blocking, and make an argument on whether dodging is really *that* more complex than blocking--and I don't think it is. But dissecting things on this level always leads to subjective response, there's almost no way to say that blocking *ruins* the game as summoning arguably does.
Both dodging and blocking have their own mechanics and management. Stamina management is much easier in DS2 if you roll, but you have to learn the roll timings for each enemy, each boss and each group of enemies. You also need to pump ADP if you want to roll. Blocking is much easier to perform, but requires much more intensive stamina management. There will be many times when you block an attack and cannot attack back because you must lower your shield to let stamina regenerate first. Additionally, in DS2, there are several other shield balancing tweaks: -the majority of shields do not block 100% of physical damage, and percentages on elemental block are lower than in DS1 -shields which do block 100% physical damage tend to be heavy (the drang shield is 6 pounds, compared to the heater shield from ds1, which was 2) -100% physical block shields tend to have high stat requirements (16 strength minimum, which is a pain on any build that isn't strength or quality build) -some bosses and enemies essentially cannot be blocked with a shield, because they drain too much stamina if you fight them this way. Aava and Velstadt spring to mind -very few shields give good block percentages on all elements, and dual-element damage is more common than in DS1 thanks to resin coatings and buffs on normal enemies
TheSamuraiGoomba I agree with all of this except the ADP boost lol, when I first saw that terrible stat I couldn't believe it. I've never made a character that levels it and I dodge just fine you just have to get used to it I would argue it's worse if you do level it cause if you make a new character you're used to the few extra Iframes it gives you and you get fucked
To give him the benefit of the doubt, he did say he wasn't sure and he did ask people in both his Bloodborne and DS2 video to correct him if there was already a name for it.
Also, this shit about how dodging > shields is an irrelevant argument since you can dodge while holding a shield. Dual-handing a weapon isn't even much of a benefit on certain builds because of the way scaling works. And holding a shield doesn't prevent you using offhand magic, pyromancies or miracles because you can just hit 1 button and swap to your other offhand item whenever you want to. You get three slots for both hands and that is intentional. There's a reason they upped the number and lowered durability. You're supposed to swap around. Setting the situation up as dodging vs blocking is a bit of a false choice since you can do both on the same build, based on which would be the safest or best option at that moment. Sure, you CAN go full greatshield with havel set and never roll, or you CAN have no shield at all and power stance or two-hand your weapons, but you don't HAVE to. That's all down to build variety. It's like Harris settled on one build, never experimented after that and decided this "most fun" build (for him) was the definitive way all people should play. Well, I think a hex dex build is the best way to play, as it's the most fun for me! So I guess I need to make up some BS about play conditioning! Ooh! The hex spell comes with 20some casts and does shitloads of damage for the entire game! Clearly this is the spell you're meant to use!
TheSamuraiGoomba Im going through Dark Souls 1 for the first time now, cosplaying as Artorias (black knight shield, claymore, and elite knight set until I get his gear), and I'm wondering how anyone can beat this game without shields, because of the restricted movement while locking on. I'm dreading my Ornstein or Ciaran playthroughs if I ever get around to them.
@@michaeljaradeh6213 There's something I find really neat about someone doing a "cosplay" of an in game character, and patchworking their costume together through unrelated items (like the ones you mentioned) even though the character's actual armor and weapons exist in game. I might have to do that. Also, Curious how/if you ever made it to the Ornstein and Ciaran runs.
"The blue print for bloodborn, the blood print if you will and alot of creative decisions laid in Dark souls 2" that's hilarius, it is even like, comon knowledge that Miyazki and DS1 team where working on Bloodborne while others where Making DS2 with a totally diferent direction......
Lol this shield stuff is so vapid is he a mind reader or something? The way he so casually ascribes intent onto the developers is really frustrating. That Bloodborne shield description thing is just ludicrous it's far more likely to just be a cheeky reference to some of their design goals in this specific game not some thesis statement on how shields were a terrible mistake. And then later with the classes? Are you kidding me? The balancing between offense and defense characters where DPS characters sacrifice defense for a greater offense while Tanks do the opposite to make it fair. It's one of the most basic things and have been present since before video games. Why does he imply Bloodborne took things from DS 2 when the game director of DS 1 went straight on to work on Bloodborne while a new director worked on DS2? They were being made largely at the same time by separate teams. That's where the whole b-team thing comes from does he not know this?
Considering, that Miyazaki worked on DS3 right after Bloodborne. And that DS3, despite being faster than other Souls games, still utilizes the shield mechanic, it's safe to assume, that the shield description in BB is just a joke that is referencing how the BB gameplay is different from the gameplay that the players might've got accustomed to by playing DeS/DaS. In regards to DS2 director - the game had 2 of those, Tomohiro Shibuya and Yui Tanimura. By some rumors/speculation, Shibuya wasn't up to the task and it was up to Tanimura to salvage the project, which might explain why DS2 is, well, DS2. But, let me reiterate, it's probably just speculation. At least, I wasn't able to find any reliable source for this information in written form. It could very well be, that the information came from some of ENB's LP videos, that he did after the release of DS2. He was one of several people, who worked on a DS2 official guide, and they, likely, had to interact with from during the production of said guide.
21:40 only one class starting with a shield doesn't mean shields are bad or that the devs didn't want you to use shields. Only one class starts with a shield because DS2 has better/different shield balancing. A lot of players in DS1 started with a standard warrior class with a shield, and that shield was good enough (actually, very good) so as to last the entire game. DS2 wants you to earn the better shields by achievement. They still give you shields though. Every starting class can get the Crimson Parma as soon as they reach Majula. It gives 75% physical reduction, which is more than it sounds like in practice. And this is available for all classes. Only one class starting with a shield is important for balance, because that's primarily why you'd pick that class. The stone parma is pretty nice as an early shield. If the knight had a shield, there'd be almost no reason to pick the warrior class. Same for the others. All of the other classes have something unique to offer, but the warrior only has a good shield, some good armor and decent combat stats. You don't get any miracles, extra items, spells or even a good sword. It's such a silly thing to point out as some kind of argument against shields. It's still a good class to pick btw because good shields are more rare than good weapons, and the starting stats are good. DS2 made classes actually matter at the start of the game by making the stat allocation a lot more specialized and differentiating their gear more as well. That's an argument Harris could have made for why DS2 is a good game, but no. He'd rather bitch about >muh shields.
And his argument is quiet a stretch since he's just make nebulous claims for those design choice and shove his opinion into designer's mouth. Again, it's all about present his personal opinion as facts and that's a terrible quality he present through out his DS2 video.
I agree with everything except the last bit, that DS2 "made classes actually matter at the start of the game." Each starting class is definitely more unique, but I would argue that it matters less in DS2 what you start with than in DS1. I say that because of the introduction of Soul Vessels that allow you to reallocate points. It doesn't matter what you start with. Say you reach level 100 as a Knight, but get sick of a Strength build and want to try Magic. As long as you have a Soul Vessel, you can go to the Firekeepers, trade that in and create a perfectly viable magic build even though the Knight only starts with 3 Int. By level 100, you have so many points that what class you started with is completely irrelevant. A bit of an anecdote here, but every new character I start, I always make an Explorer. No matter what build I want to create, I will make an Explorer. Why? I do it because it starts with the most ADP. It starts with Witching Urns, Aromatic Ooze, and a Pharos Lockstone. I do it because I know I will be able to go back later at a higher level and choose what I kind of build I want to play with in that moment, whether it be Strength, Dex, Quality, Magic, Miracles, Hexes, Pryo, or a combination of any of them. The fact that I chose an Explorer to start will not hurt in my choices in any way, despite their low starting stats. (Side note: I love DS2. It is probably my favorite overall in the Souls series, and 2nd favorite when I throw in Bloodborne. It has a lot of elements to it that are my favorite, including the introduction of a respec with the Soul Vessel. That being said. I don't see the need to defend it to every inch of its core. Despite it being my favorite for a lot of the features it included, it has some objectively poor design. It has a lot of glaring issues that the other games do not have. World design is a massive one. I like DS2 the best because it offers the most in terms of replayability with the best build variety and viability, power stance, the most options for fashion, significant NG+ changes among other things. But I'm not going to sit there and defend the obvious flaws the game has.)
@Hiraeth To be fair, the quote does say "at the start of the game." They could easily agree that by the end of the game it no longer matters, but I think they're saying that it does make a bigger difference at the beginning, before you get access to all the items and weapons and souls you want, since Dark Souls 2 seems to make it take longer to get to the good stuff, for the most part, so you'll be stuck with a relative lack of choice for far longer than in the first game, so being able to start with something good matters more.
+TheSamuraiGoomba Considering blows needed to be blocked with the shield to earn that 75% reduction I'd argue it's far less than it sounds like and than was warranted. Comes down to preference though, there are times where I would prefer these games just made sense rather than like other action games and other games in the RPG genre trying to 'balance' blocking.
Playing with shield and zweihander is something I've found intensely satisfying in Darksouls. You start out weak and helpless, and now you can one-hand a sword so big it's name is "Two Hander" while laughing off hits from big huge enemies as they bounce off your shield.
I loved the "honest admission" come-back to Harris' comment on the shield in Bloodborne. I love how, if you follow Harris' own logic, or what remains of it, anyway; the very existence of Dark Souls 3 character select option basically destroys everything he has ever said about the Dark Souls and Bloodborne games. Which is probably why he never made a video on it, I suppose.
I just want to mention... Harris obtusely refers to the phrase "not if they engender passivity" as being 'genius'. But it not only isn't genius, it's just a mistranslation. In Japanese the description says 「盾はよい。だが、過信することなかれ」 That doesn't mean "Shields are nice, but not if...(blah blah)" It means "Shields are good. However, do not be overconfident [with them]." Much more nuanced than Harris's blind crusade. The grammar is medieval, so the translator's failure is understandable（なかれ is the imperative form of なし in classical Japanese). But he was clearly using fancy English words to puff himself up and disguise (from his bosses?) the fact that he didn't quite know what the Japanese text really meant. One more example of this silly world of Rian Johnsons, where people get paid to be bad at what they do.
I like how the existence of Sekiro and the expanded improved blocking of Elden Ring completely shatters Harris' "shield and blocking not fun" argument. The developers made Dark Souls and Elden Ring account for a plethora of different playstyles and approaches, meanwhile Bloodborne and Sekiro are focused on specific mechanics and going more in depth with them, while sacrificing build variety. Both approaches are valid and great in their own way. Yet Harris treats the two styles as the same thing, which is his failing.
I think it's worth noting, in regards to Harris' Fallout 3 video, that the vast majority of his points and critiques have been floating around the internet for many many years before he made it. With boards like No Mutants Allowed and the chans making pretty much every point and criticism that he did, spaced out over the years, it seems like all Hbomb really did was crib them from various places on the internet (almost word for word) and condense them into a single video. I would not be surprised in the least to learn that he actually did very little playing of the game himself, and simply compiled all of this info together under the guise of 'research' and used it himself without citing where he got it or from whom, due to the fact that so many people have made similar statements regarding the game already in so many different ways. I'd assume he just came to the same conclusions himself, if not for his Dark Souls 2 video. Where he is very intellectually dishonest, stretches all of his points, and like you said 'Doesn't put the work in'. It's clear from the start that he has actually played very little of the game, and I don't for a minute think that he was willing to actually go back and play all of the other Fallout titles, plus 3, to properly formulate that ultimately well reasoned video.
I actually really wish you would examine that Bloodborne video now. Having watched up to this video so far I've come to start questioning my enjoyment of his videos, specifically that one. I watched that and Joseph Anderson's videos on it and it made me want to do my own reviews, but if all of that video is bullshit...that has me questioning things.
I still enjoy a lot of his videos. He can make good content; his Bloodborne and DS2 videos were not his finest hour. What made me realize his Bloodborne video was bad was not the shield argument, but the blatant misrepresentation of Ocarina of Time; with which he contrasted the Souls series in order to make a point of Dark Souls games being "inherently unfair" or something like that. As a Zelda fan, I noticed a lot of his weird points and inaccuracies for what they were. For instance, he talked about how, because of the way Souls games are, he got paranoid about floor tiles in one area that turned out to be completely normal. Guess what? In Ocarina of Time, some floor tiles levitate and attack Link.
He thinks play conditioning is a new thing? The most famous example of it is from the first Metroid game? How could he claim good game design is a brand new idea. I like blood borne but that's just stupid
I was introduced to hbomber's channel through the Fallout 3 video, and thought he would be an awesome critic. How very wrong I was, and very glad I am to have found this channel now. After seeing multiple of his videos and multiple of yours, you are clearly a more consistently capable arguer. +1 subs!
If a fromsoft game has made me use a shield the most it was playing dark souls 2 cause how horrible the rolling became. Seems odd that he's saying it pushes you to not use one when I had exact opposite experience.
No kidding. Coming from DaS1 (where I dodged quite a lot), I couldn't seem to dodge _anything_ in DaS2. The s don't match up well with the animations, and what's worse, with the s being stat-dependent, you don't have *ANY* visual feedback (other than the trial and error of whiffing dodges) on when your s end for your current ADP. It was such an awful decision.
Reminded and embarrassed about having a comment/watching this whocare video that is too long tbh. Watched too much UA-cam then. Play kings field(1995) for survival horror kino.
@@LizardWizardoAo Tbh I'm only watching this series due to its vague relation to matthewmatosis, I'm so hyped to play whatever that guy is going to create. Thanks for the rec, I'd certainly like to.
“You see guys, the only real Halo game is Halo 3: ODST... though being a spin-off, you can clearly see (laughing) that shields (more laughing) are not in the game, and it clearly pushes you toward the best play style (goes on about how this is all his opinion) which is sniping and sneaking. The lower health clearly embodies the fact that we are just humans, and are weak. This goes along with the narrative as pushed in these books (laughter) that were released years after!”
With the unlimited healing items Harris so fucking adores, it makes shield builds even more viable. As what little damage you take can be healed with said unlimited healing, making each instance of combat more about immediate survival and victory, unlike dark souls 1 much more resource driven combat.
This series gave me so much insight, not only on the soulsborne series, but on seeing things from an unbiased perspective. Your way of thinking has really left an impression on me. Thank you, MauLer.
After watching so far, I don't even feel the need to play it. You have made such an in depth cover of the game that I feel I have already experienced the entire game. Please do continue doing things like this, becasuse this is an amazing series. From an old DS1 player I really feel likem this video series covers most of the game as a whole. I really hope to see more videos like this series. Keep up the amazing work!
Boone Bluemel that’s not too fair on hbomb, he does have a few good videos where his style of overdramatization actually fits the theme(something which needs to have been established as bad), see the fallout 3 video for more details In this particular instance, he had multiple overlaying issues in making the video, all starting from the fact that he didn’t even have a good reason to make this video to begin with. This in turn made all of his points feel just the same: flimsy and lacking in substance
christ the night if it wasnt for mauler's commentary I don't think I could get through these, the contempt towards anyone who doesnt follow this eXaCt SeNtImEnT is palpable, if I hadn't played any dark souls games before, the video by hbomber would just make me shy away from ever even trying any of them, damn
As someone who started out with DS3 and played with a shield I got at the beginning that blocked 95 damage despite everyone in my stream telling me that shields are trash somehow... this argument triggers me
The best point made in this video is that they literally made Dark Souls 3 without keeping anything from Dark Souls 2 aside from a few random items. I think that says a lot about Dark Souls 2.
I always got the impression that he liked ds2 because the obscene health regen made it easier to play like a hack n slash, which made it more like the devil may cry games that he said were his favorite earlier. Old video but i digress
16:00 That is to say nothing of the lore implications of the shield. The running theme is that a more aggressive, agile and proactive fighting style was required to combat the beasts of Yarnham. The various different hunter's attire you come across throughout emphasizes balancing protection without compromising movement and speed. Further evidenced by the dead knights in plate armor scattered throughout the Chalice Dungeons, showing that a more defensive approach to combat is detrimental. The item description is bang on; they did engender passivity...withing the confines of the Bloodborne cannon. Saying that the item description is some veiled attempt by FromSoft towards a mechanic in a previous title is ludicrous. Off the back of that, the whole argument against shields runs completely contrary to HBomber's assertion about "guys in armor". A lot of his favorite bosses...use shields. If the game was meant to excel in these areas, why would the bosses be given at item that, according to him, are not the right way to play? If the game is firing on all cylinders when your against an armored foe and the "best" or "optimal" way to utilize the game's mechanics for this are to not use a shield, why do a good portion of enemies and bosses use shields? The Looking Glass Knight, Throne Watcher and Defender, Dragonriders x3, Ruin Sentinels and the Pursuers all utilize shields. So, in HBomber's example, these are objectively poorly designed bosses due to the fact they are using shields and not maximizing the potential of the design of Dark Souls 2...and yet, they seem to get a pass on this as they are "Guys in armor" that can be fought one on one. Lastly (because this is getting a little out of hand) the argument about damage reduction on block and low health when starting. As a new player, I personally found it a much better trade off when learning the mechanics to take 15% of a strike's total damage because I blocked it, rather than take 100% damage from it because I don't understand roll timings or how to parry. Yeah, you can grind it out and adapt to these skills, but as a Souls noob I was far more interested in finding a method and set of tactics that worked for me and my playstyle so I could sink my teeth into the bulk of the game. The last thing I wanted to do was hamstring myself with a playstyle that didn't work for me. Following HBomber's advice, I would have probably got destroyed over and over in the opening areas trying to figure out parry timings and how to dodge, and given up on the game due to frustration. Playing with a shield eventually let me see attack timings and openings, eventually giving me the confidence I needed to try 2 handing my weapon and getting my dodge game on. This made the point where I could play the game more closely to what HBomber considers the ideal way to play, a hell of a lot more rewarding. I had progressed from a stoic shield wall to an agile powerhouse through a self-created progression system, allowing me to appreciate the mechanics of the combat on a deeper, more fulfilling level and making me feel a meaningful sense of accomplishment.
When I was new to the Souls series - that is, during my time spent on DKS1- I only built glass cannon builds. This led to a lot of frustration because I'm not very good, and I was even worse at the time. It's amazing to me that I even managed to get to Nito on one of my six separate characters. Now, here, in DKS3, I've got builds that have like 15 vigor so I'm still a glass cannon and I should probably fix that.
This part is alot more opinionated, it's obvious Hbomber prefers DS2 and Mauler prefers DS1, but since it's kept as opinion based it's fine. The claim that shields were bad for players and a weakness Fromsoft wanted to phase out is actually hilarious. If anyone truly believes that, play through DS1 again with a greatshield, preferably Havel's or Artorias, and see how challenging anything is. Shields are also plenty useable in 2 and I highly recommend one for the starter area since many enemies will outrange you with spears, halberds, and greatswords. You can block a hit you probably take because ADP is too low at that point, and return attack for an easy kill. You don't need 100% block, especially when you can potentially sustain infinitely with lifegems.
You know, watching through this series, I really don’t think Harris actually likes Soulsbourne games. He doesn’t like interconnectivity in the world or having too many options in how to approach a scenario. He frequently laments “doomed” runs, and having no choice but to die, and etc. It really feels like he made it through DS1 pissing and crying, and when DS2 came out, he had prior experience so it felt easier. There’s an embarrassment of riches for healing options, so no more doomed runs, most enemy encounters are just mobs of basics, so he gets gratification from easily killing a lot of enemies, and there are clear endpoints and warping available immediately, so he doesn’t have to worry about traveling through the unknown extensively. Add to that him frequently saying he couldn’t do things in DS2 and him marveling at being able to skip 50% of the game, and it really feels like he just wants to get it done and over with. Which is such a depressing way of approach FromSoft games
Oh god, plus 100 for that Vegeta311 clip! I do remeber an interview with Miyazaki remarking on wanting to move from shields in a future games as the turtling might have been too much. BB came out right after but I don't think he meant it as severe as HB suggests. More like open pondering. The flavor text is to vague to prove an admission of guilt by the team.
"dear god my entire world is ending" if they're hollow enough to die permanently, then there's no way a thought that complicated is going through their dust-filled skulls. if they are capable of thought, then they just spawn back at a bonfire, because that's how the fucking undead curse works. the thing that makes it a curse in the first place is that your world CAN'T end, it is the curse of immortality.
My first DS1 Completion was in full Havels and Fat Rolling/white nuckeling my Great Shield and black night sword. I guess my experience was wrong. Crazy how I still saw the same end credits screen as Harris...
Hbomb is dumb with his statement thinking dks2 inspired bborne. Bborne was made AT THE SAME TIME as 2 and dks2 was made by the b team while the main team made bborne
"Play conditioning" is just a made up word that means the same thing as conveyance. There's no way to really force all players into one particular, rigid style of play in a game as open ended as Dark Souls. That's what makes games enjoyable: freedom of choice and player expression. Even in a less open-ended game like Doom or Halo, you have many weapons to choose from and will ultimately develop a preference for certain ones, not to mention that each player develops their own way of fighting (regardless of how unique or optimal it is, even though most "hardcore" players strive to play the best way possible). All DS2 really conveys is fundamental shit like "the game can be rather challenging and often even unfair", "you're encouraged to look through every nook and cranny of the world in order to progress", and "combat is weighty and taking damage hurts more than in most games". Granted, DS2 also teaches you awful lessons that are misrepresentative of the Dark Souls series such as "ambush rooms full with mobs is par for the course in Dark Souls", "you really should be summoning in this area", and "don't worry about dying, here's some pop rocks that'll heal you slowly."
"In Elden Ring they added a counter attack similar to a riposte while you are shielded up without the risk of the parry mechanic. Therefore the devs made the statement that removing the shields in Bloodborne was a bad design." His statements aged like a fine turd. xD
I'll say this - I was legit furious they removed Power Stance in DS3. That mechanic and all the different builds you could create with it were one of the reasons I would replay through DS2. The game as a lot of flaws, but I legit loved the power stance. Also, they removed poise... Dark Souls 3 is such a weird game, which honestly feels more like Demon's Souls 2.
Hey. 2 years later I got Dark Souls remastered from a friend and I had alot of fun but I'm stuck on the 2nd boss. Wished there was a bond fire in front of the fog wall so I don't have to go through an army and might not have given up there. Me typing this in does make me go for another round. Wish me luck.
Do you think someone had to tell Harris that he didn’t like shields? Or did he find that out by playing the game just like everyone else does to find their play style?
One of the strangest arguments HBomberguy makes is: „When you start with a shield, the game only gives you a bad weapon. It shows, that using a shield hinders you.“ WHAT?!? Isn‘t it the exact other way around? If they give you a worse weapon, when giving you a shield, doesn‘t that tell you that a shield is good, and the weapon needs to be worse to balance the class? That‘s how games have been balanced for AGES! If you give somebody on item that is worse than in all other classes (in this case the sword), that means that class has something good (in this case: the shield) that other classes don‘t have! Harris is smart enough to know how balancing works… he just seems to forget here.
I love Harris's weird mental gymnastics where he believes that every game From Software makes is somehow them apologizing for the game that came before, but only insofar as it supports his narrative
Back when Bloodborne was called Project Beast, the first trailer shows many instances of the player raising their weapons to block incoming attacks. It's far more likely that they considered how to implement mechanics from the previous games they made only to remove some of them as they realized it didn't mesh well with the direction this new project was aiming for rather than a blunt reaction to shields having been source of a problematic playstyle, altho obviously, I wouldn't really know. Not that it necessarily means much, they've carried plenty shit designs from one game to the next, but I suppose I'm getting too subjective now.
His whispery whimsical affectations really start to grate after a while. Especially once you get a sense of how smug and self-satisfied he's often being.
After watching other MauLer and HBomb videos, it has become clear that MauLer is a critic who happens to be entertaining where Harris is an entertainer who sometimes has critical analyses in his videos. I think that's what I'm trying to say, at least.
"Madman's Knowledge is a resource in Bloodborne that represents how close you come to the eldritch truth. Hunters and enemies who have gone mad are generally really strong and coming closer to the eldritch truth by forsaking your humanity is a canonical advantage. This I feel is an admission of the dev's part, that you should kill all the NPC's in Bloodborne and go through the Souls series without ever using humanities." -Harris, probably
One of my lifelong regrets will always be Wiki Scumming DS1 when I was younger. After playing the series for so long now I’d love to play that game fresh again.
Oh 110%, in the same way Sekiro was them admitting you only should have one option for melee weapons. Surprised it took them 5 games to figure that one out.
@@Gspi1005 It's also the same say how, Elden Ring, demonstrates they were wrong about making tight single player experiences in hub/interconnected worlds. It's obvious they learned their silly misguided lesson and finally made an open world game!
Half assed? I felt the video was pretty good at showing the problems with the game in comparison to the others, especially in regards to story. It is far less subjective than his BB or DS2 video.
Harris was a normal, sane man once. Until he read the item description of the shield in Bloodborne. The knowledge drove him mad.
He gained a very "special" type of insight.
Micolash be standing in front of Harris's Window screaming: "GRANT US EYES!"
Bro picked up a shield that said "Don't use this one it's bad" and he started to see the Amygdalas
Kos or some say Shields...
"We are born of the shield, made men by the shield, undone by the shield."
Dark souls 2 discourages shield use, yet is the only souls game that contains a ring capable of reducing the stamina drain from blocking hits? They must really not want you to use those 70 shields they created.
Those 70+ shields, a handful of which they ran a design contest for to put user made shields into the game. Yeah just forget those existed.
The "intended way"? Never felt like that in Dark Souls 2, it's pretty open ended with it's build options.
Bat
Sure, the game with the broken dodge is the one that discourages shield use.
For those who don't know DS2 has an stat called agility, it sole propouse is to yet introduce further artificial difficulty and make the dodge not-crap, because in DS2 they intentionally decided to make the dodge crap by removing the standar invencibility frames that every soul game uses on it's rolling animation meaning than in order to get the standard frames that every game in the series uses you have to waste time and souls into leveling this pointless stat. Before that rolling is not reliable and the best way to defend yourself is with a shield, and even then there's no "proper way to play", just like Harris you didn't bring up any evidence just treated as fact your opinion of playstyle and just like Harris lie about the effectiveness of the shield because literally 10 minutes in you can find 100% damage blocking ones in the game.
Bat I'm sorry, but you're full of shit. Everything from the shield design contests, to the number of shields, and even the accessories you can use to make them more effective suggests shields are very much a part of DaS2's core design.
You can't just state that the game was "meant to be played" one way, ignore all of the evidence that suggests otherwise, and then expect people to take your opinion seriously.
Bat
LoL the same argument can be done for DS1 about early games areas being easy to dodge hell even in 3, that's not a DS2 exclusive thing speedruns of even Demon Souls show players sprinting across the map with no equipment dodging everything this is not a thing DS2 started at all.
Also ADP not broken? lol ADP is the reason most of the broken hitboxes of the game become even more annoying, DS2 is the only roll in the series in which you can get hit mid roll because there are points in the rolling animation in which the Iframes dictated by ADP ran out and you get hit even when the enemy finished it's attack animation all that BS because they decided that rolling should not be a test of reflexes and timing but arbitrary farming, all ADP did was intruducing a pointless stat, add even more artificial difficulty and making a (unpleasant) chore out of farming to increase said stat, if ADP was such a great idea then ¿why Dark Souls 2 is the only game with the cripple dodge and the ADP stat?
Also you mention 25 point as if that was a fair small amount, it isn't that's literally softcapping a pointless porly designed gimmick when instead I could be softcapping an actual stat like DEX even 15 is pushing it far, how about removing the stat and actuallly let the rolling function like every other game in the series?
So yeah if you ask me what's the best method of avoiding DMG in general in DS2 is a shield, because I' m not gonna depend on a roll that's so poorly design that it makes it seems you can be hitted at random.
"But you can level it up" or better yet I can play any other game in the series and actually make an enjoyable no-shield run because all of them have a proper dodge function and I don't have to deal with a pointless stat and comicaly bad hitboxes.
It's very ironic that Harris hates shields even though he loves DS2 which made dodge rolling way less viable than shielding until the character's stats are increased.
What I find weird is that, in his Bloodborne video, he said Ocarina of Time was one of his favourite games for a long time. You know; a game where the hero's signature weapon set is a sword and shield. How does he think shields are passive and that you shouldn't use them if he's played Zelda games?
He also neglects that the Plank Shield in BB is literally a massive counter to bullets of all kinds.
Also, in lots of harris' own footage, he's running a shield 😂
@@Speedyeep Not too sure about that. Harris footage is with the red bars. Pretty sure he played the knight with battle axe without shield for the most part.
@@matthewmuir8884 I guess because Link uses a shield in his right hand instead of his left? Maybe that's the trick.
Also, I think Harris' point about Dark Souls 2 "inspiring many of the brilliant choices in Bloodborne" completely falls flat when you actually realize that both of the games were being worked on at the same time, but Bloodborne took longer, presumably because Miyazaki actually wanted to iron out the wrinkles, because he seems to be very deliberate when crafting his games.
+Elvick 'would anyone actually think it was Dark souls'...the game is nearly completely identical in every way so I have a suspicion it would've been obvious to just me. Just like Bloodborne is clearly also just Dark souls despite the name change, From's souls games are more similar to each other than Assassin's creed sequels even if you argue there's a big variance in quality.
"polish is important" - game design 101
7dayspking There are a ton of CoD RIP offs that use its control scheme, color palate, weapon system, story beats, world design, and interface. But it's still pretty obvious to tell a real CoD game apart from an imitation by the level of polish in it (it's the only thing they have going for them these day tbh)
The same thing with ds2. Everything feels so off, if only just a little, that it feels more like an imitation than the real thing. If it was called something else I would have confused it for a send up like Ni-oh.Also, bloodborne is just dark souls?Lol, kay.
@@ImaTroper 'other games rip off cod' I don't think I agree, so many games were doing what COD has been for the last decade since before and there's so many shooters it's damn near impossible to tell which is a rip off of what. However I agree, games like COD are a dime a dozen just like the old platformers and now 'looter' games.
Are any of From's games amazingly polished, detailed or 'finished' looking? Not until Dark souls 3 and maybe Bloodborne I don't think. In Some areas Dark souls 2 looks like more effort taken, the game actually runs unlike the original, the world looks slightly more detailed than the lifeless cardboard world in the original Dark souls (and to a lesser extent Demon Souls.), improve animations, less broken hit detection (from my experience.). What's 'missing' people seem to b arguing is 'artistic inspiration' and coherence.
I'm happy From look to be doing something else with their new title and actually putting some effort in, I was close to grouping them with the developers of the Dynasty warriors franchise.
I don't think I could confuse Ni-Oj (having never played it to be fair.) for a Souls game, looks like far more effort and care was put into that at least by the worker bees responsible for the basic engine, gameplay and visuals.
@@ImaTroper thats almost unfair towards nioh, at least in that you dont spend a third of the game backing up.
"The blueprint for bloodborne lies in DS2"
omg how embarrasing.....
I read that with mr plincket voice
@@messikimoshi69 ahh if only Mr. Plinkett were a gamer. The things he could say about hbomb's video and DS2 in general 😂😂
Well considering they were made around the same time I doubt it
They were being developed at the same time, the reason why BloodBorne released later is because they spent more time working on it. I doubt the BB developers were peeking over the shoulders of the DS2 developers and saying “oh, that looks good, let’s use it in our game.”
Why is he so blissfully unaware Dark Souls 2 and Bloodborne had different directors and development teams...
"Parrying only came into its own in Bloodborne, which handed you a weapon specifically for doing it..."
Dammit, he's right! If only there was some sort of weapon that was specifically designed to parry with. Like a kind of dagger that can be held in your left hand to parry with, like a PARRYING DAGGER or something.
R. S. Lever ~ Or even the buckler. You can block normally with the buckler, but its sole advantage over other shields is its increased parry window.
@@fruitfulmink1326 i would argue that rapier is better where it can do decent damage and the parrying window while not large are tight enough. Plus style points.
I only beat Gwyn because of parrying.
@@davids7646 TBH I was taught how to parry with weapons in DS1 with that damn dagger; it'd never occurred to me to try dual wielding before that, but when I found a parrying dagger I was like "you wot mate? I can use daggers to parry? WAIT, can I use WEAPONS TO PARRY!?"
I then proceeded to murder the stupid assassins before the Capra Demon with it (seriously, fuck those guys ¬¬) and fell in love completely with dual wield parrying... That was the point at which I started over for a dodge+parry focused character instead of the tank I'd been playing xD
not to mention the numerous weapons that can parry when paired in the left hand like mail breaker and painting guardian sword
The Heater shield is the embodiment of the player in DS1.
It's tiny, it's scarred, it's beat to hell, but it keeps going, and it does it's job until the end. That shield alone has so much personality, it's small, it blocks 100% physical, it's had blows mean enough to dent it, but it doesn't give up. Whatever hit it would have been absolutely fatal to the user.
and even further, its the only 100% block shield with an 8 str requirement. the lowest your strength could ever be in ds1 was 9. it is a shield that literally every single starting class can use right off the bat, and is sold by the first (second if you found rickard) merchant in the game. it is Training Wheels, by design.
Even dragon rider can use it.
@@louis5368 let's not go that far
Kat Licks and thus through the power of personification, you’ve made me not want to replace it- it’s my friend now....thank you
@@louis5368 he fails the int requirements
Can I just say that we're in part 6 and Harris has BARELY talked about why Dark Souls 2 is even good? It should really be named "why every other game is shit."
Nurse Valentine well what could he say? What could he really praise that The other souls have made far better?
@@void735 It's probably because even he couldn't;t ignore some of Ds2's blatant issues so he instead denied their existence and proceeded to bash Ds1 for doing worse. That's like comparing yourself to the school bully in terms of personality. "Well, he beats up more people than I do! So stop criticizing me! " Although I do think Ds1 is much better than the average school bully, you get my point.
Weren’t you listening? He said that it’s better because he likes it and that means it’s good. Geez.
"The Original Trilogy isn't as good as you think"
4 years later and this is the M.O. of every single fucking DS2 fan in the world who tries to "defend" their own garbage game.
I'm a simple, boring guy: Final Fantasy 4 was my first RPG, and for some reason the image of the shield-carrying Paladin stuck with me. For the first time playing something, I will ALWAYS pick a Sword-and-Board class, if it's an option, barring a few exceptions. The only times I think I ever went against this was
1) When I played WoW, where the first class I made was a Blood Elf Hunter, because all my friends who nagged me to play with them said they were playing Horde, and
2) When I played Guild Wars 2 and made a Sylvari Mesmer, because I liked the idea of the "plant elf people" and the game mechanics of the Mesmer were unlike anything I had ever seen before.
I haven't played the Souls games, yet, but when I do, I will probably make a sword and shield carrying fellow in armor, because that's how I'm wired. And no matter what Harris says, I will never see that as me "playing the game wrong."
Ah, Cecil harvey... The very face of the paladin class in rpgs. Also, my favorite final fantasy character. :D
I have the same. I like the idea of being the vanguard, the guy standing in front sacrificing himself just so people can return home and tell of my bravery (a bit to much roleplaying? Sorry there xD).
I like being the tank. Hiding behind a shield, having a HP bar bigger than my ego and soaking hit after hit while retaliating whenever possible... Yea that's how I play Darksouls, any (MMO)RPG or table top games like DND.
BTW werent Mesmers also able to wear a shield, granting them pretty strong defensive skills? I might be wrong, haven't played GW2 in years and was more of a staff Mesm myself since I loved the concept of applying a shitload of debuffs
Yes, actually. In the first expansion "Heart of Thorns" Mesmers got an "Elite build" called the Chronomancer, which changes their playstyle. They get a shield which gives them two abilities: A bubble block which creates a new clone every time they're struck, and a shield bash that creates an energy wave that can paralyze enemies, while simultaneously speeding up allies' attacks.
Dude you have to play the first Dark Souls then. Is like THE GAME to do what you say. DS3 is a bit bullshit to play like that because they nerfed shields and armor a lot that armor almost did nothing, but DS is perfect for that.
I'm just like you in that regard. My favorite class/job of all-time is the Dragoon and FF4 was the first time I saw the class with Kain being one of my all-time favorite characters. Because of characters like him and games like Legend of Dragoon, I pretty much always play Dragoon style (well, FF Dragoon style at least) with spears/lances if they're available.
With hbombs logic I might aswell say something like: You can equip a shield in both hands, therefore dark souls must want me to dual-wield shields.
Wich i absolutly would.
THE WALL
Best way to play the game imo.
Clearly a devs support this with the addition of the Door Shields in the Ringed City.
PunkZombie1300 there were dual wield shields in DS2 tho...
There was also an op shield in one of the dlc you could two hand and deal like 200+ damage with fully upgraded
"The Korean war taught the world how useful helicopters could be. Therefore the Napoleonic wars were fought wrong" - HBomberguy
"Not saying that world war 1 was fought wrong.
But world war 2 really did make everyone realise nukes were a viable tactic"
They were fought wrong anyway. Only a massive egotist tries to punch out Winter.
@@antonyduhamel1166 We are talking about Napoleon...
@@ulrichweiss9912 Touchè
@@ulrichweiss9912 Well it was a massive mistake. I can understand why he thought it would work. He had conquered most of Europe at that point and didn't realize The Russians care about the motherland more than they care about their own life and didn't realize just how insane the weather could get there.
Wait did he just argue that Dark Souls 2 was the print and standard from which Bloodborne was built from? Wasn't Dark Souls 2 a game which Miyazaki literally didn't work on or want to be a part of, is evidently not fond of and pretends doesnt exist? That's the game Miyazaki based Bloodborne, which started in development either around the same time or *before* Dark Souls 2?
What's worse is Miyazaki specifically didn't work on DS2 because he was working on BB at the time. Which, for many fans at the time, was a HUGE red flag.
@@HoHhoch What? The man known for preferring to take time to handcraft levels and enemies and the like all the way down to attack animations didn't want anything to do with Spam Souls 2?
@@warden-commandercousland Oof. You got me there.
The funny thing is, despite all the people like Hbomber raving about how good and how criminally underrated DS2 is, the first thing you'll notice upon loading it up is that it's immediately much more clunky than BB and DS3, and even DS1. DS1's feels like it was by design. DS2's clunk is simply poor design and quite possibly some poor programming as well.
My first thought upon beginning the game was that this can't be by the same people. It's immediately a poor imitation.
But I definitely understand Hbomber's desire to desperately defend something even though it's bad. I was young and ignorant once too.
I think it's abundantly clear Harris never even beat DS1 let alone played half the game.
Bloodborne doesn't encourage shields because it's thematically different than Dark Souls. Dark Souls is a grimdark medieval setting, Bloodborn is a grimdark Victorian game with guns. On top of that, Bloodborne gameplay is around quick and aggressive play, while Dark Souls game play favors deliberate, strategic, and smart play.
Dark Souls and Bloodborne are similar games, but they are very different thematically, which affects gameplay, which affects equipment choice.
The "deprived" starting class starts with nothing, teaching the player to say "fuck it" and punch everything in the game.
Maybe if he used shields, he wouldn't need summons to help him through certain parts of the game. Just food for thought.
I dunno, some places in DS2 (shrine of Amana, for example) are such total BS even if you have a shield and good armor, that you can't really be blamed for using a summon to get it over with.
Either that, or if he really hates shields, he could've at least learned how to play more efficiently when two-handing his weapons by now. 3 games in and he's relying on summons.
I bet his dislike for shields comes from a deeply rooted inability to learn the parry timing..
Shields are lame, you need to spam dodge like a real man.
@@insensitive919 this but unironically
MauLer,
I want to thank you for this series of videos criticizing Harris. I had forgotten about his video defending DKS2. I have to admit that I really did enjoy DKS2 but still pales in comparison next to DKS1 for me. I understood the critiques of DKS2 and agreed with most of them. I enjoyed Mathewmatosis' critique very much for example. I was sad though for all the hate that DKS2 was receiving and so found myself watching Harris' video in defending DKS2 for a refreshing perspective on DKS2. I was unable to finish his video and his smugness turned me off as well. His defenses were so extremely subjective that it annoyed me to no end.
Your video series pointing out Harris' shortcomings and hypocrisy was wonderful to experience. You articulated what I felt while watching his video flawlessly. I attempted to watch a different video of his(I forget what the video was about) but again, I was unable to finish the video and I found myself purposely avoiding watching any video of his henceforth. Thank you again for these videos.
"The enemies fall down in a protracted animation and stay there for ages while they wait for you to capitalize. This is in a word, encouraging." This is in a word, babying.
It’s also extremely annoying because it means you can’t instantaneously riposte, you have to wait for them to have completed an animation, which means it’s far easier to be prevented from riposting if there are multiple enemies, because you could easily parry one, then not be allowed to riposte for a second or so, and in this interval be hit, forcing you to defend yourself, thus preventing the riposte.
It’s a good thing the enemies are generally alone, and not in groups of three to six... Oh, wait -_-
@@nathanjora7627 yeah, shield breaks and backstabs, despite how fucky they are, are more viable. And not every enemy uses a shield or can be backstabbed.
Sirinterweb Yeah. Although I’m not sure what you mean by guard breaks ?
I really liked how shield breaks allowed you to riposte in DS3, especially with the weapon arts that allow you to guard break (especially since I suck at parties in DS3 >
@@nathanjora7627 can't you do the shield break critical even if someone was guarding with a weapon as well?
Sirinterweb Eh... Probably ? I don’t see how that’s relevant though :|
"the deprived starts naked with no weapon- that means they intended you to never pick up items"-Hbomb
Domo3000 is showing how wrong is Mauler about DS2, and he is doing an amazing job. s
@@AtreyusNinja What loser comments on 3 year old comments about some fuckers loweffort response video to an even older video?
forgot that hbomberguy implied to have invented the whole concept of play conditioning, the ego boggles the mind still
I find it incredibly narcissistic considering that having taken a concentration in Game Design at my University, the idea of teaching players through mechanics and set/level design is a premise as old as the NES and Super Mario Bros. As games got more complex and gained mechanical depth with technology and simply time passing this extended from how to respond directly to obstacles to a mentality for more broad/abstract problems, but it's not something he coined beyond the title.
It's not something the Soulsborne series even invented or popularized, it's just an existing skill of game design that it uses to great effect.
I don't think he's aware that this concept already exists and is called game design... -_- To quote my former teacher in game design : One of the main purpose of game design and game designers is to teach and condition the player how to play the game and interact with its different systems.
God damn that guy is so moronic it's almost painful.
Wait ... the first time I heard him say that, it sounded like he was saying Bloodborne was the first game to implement "play conditioning" (which in itself is quite the incredible claim), but now that I listen to it again, yeah, he's literally saying that _his own video_ about Bloodborne _invented_ this concept. _Holy shit._ This isn't a complicated idea either, teaching someone how to play through the game's mechanics has been around since games and is arguably the core of game design as a whole. Watch Egoraptor's breakdown of Megaman X. Watch literally any breakdown of SMB 1-1. Go to the library and read any book on game design 101. I am blown away by how ignorant this man is. God damn.
It's basically him thinking he discovered what we mortals call "learning."
@@papershadow Yeah, super mario bros (the one from 1984 or something) already very obviously (back in the day being subtle wasn't needed) teaches you things in the first level. It's one of the defining strenghts of nintendo games. Their ability to have natural tutorials that children(target group) won't recognize so they aren't pulled out of the game. I remember seeing an amazing video that shows how in nintendo games they always have like 3 variations on a challenge. The tutorial which is completely safe. Then the challenge where you can die. Then the challenge again but with a difficult curve ball thrown in. Most average players can learn how to do variation 2 and 3 before they even have to do them and they won't notice it.
When Harris comments that "the Blueprint for Bloodborne was DS2" pretty much confirms the lack of research he did (as if "You can't even parry with two-handed in DS1" wasn't enough).
DS2, DS3 and Bloodborne were in production at practically the exact time, that's why they were able to realse them anually (2014 -> DS2, 2015->BB & 2016-> DS3) BB and DS3 were Directed by Miyazaki while DS2 by someone else and Miyazaki comented once that the combat for BB was inspired by players playing DARK SOULS 1 in an unusual aggresive manner (AKA no shield runs that "they totally did not had", parry-blocking and speed running).
Miyazaki had nothing to do with the development of DS2 and DS2 could not be a direct inspiration because they were both made by entirely different teams and were made at practially the same exact time.
Not to mention every clever & FUNCTIONAL idea from DS2 was in fact carried to DS3 which include: the expanded inventory slots, the UI layout, being able to revert human (or in this case kindled ash) without needing a bonefire and the estus shards. That's it. Maybe bonfire ascetics would have been cool, but can live without them.
Nah, using weapon movesets properly regardless of which hand they're equipped in is pretty good. Also, being able to parry when 2 handed is cool. Parrying with a Greatsword is just amazing. Another thing that is good imo is the small white soapstones, those are more for players who need humanity fast rather than for helping beat a boss. It's just another option.
And no I'm not shilling for DkS2. These are just the different things it had that I thought were good.
Walamonga 1313 none of what you said is relevant to the op’s comment. His point was that dark souls 2 clearly was not an inspiration for bloodborne
While bonfire asthetics would be cool i fear they could ruin leveling progression, in ds2 you can farm giant lord 4-5 times and be entirely overleveled for the rest of the game.
If you carry this over to ds3 with yohrm the same could be repeated ruining the challenge for the remaining game
@@dodojesus4529 if you didn’t want to ruin the challenge you wouldn’t do it.
@@SorowFame having to restrict yourself to experience the intended experience is not a good argument
Bomberguy: shield bad
Also Bomberguy: adp is an okay stat and has no issues and doesnt force new players into a reliance on shields
I could never really "get" parrying in Dark Souls 2. DS1 felt very natural, you press the button and almost instantly get your parry frames. You line the button press with your enemy's attack, and you're golden. It didn't feel easy, but it was something I knew I could become good at, and eventually did. DS2 on the other hand, seems to have too much of a delay, or maybe I can't define understand the parry frames well enough. It seems like I'm parrying "in advance" of an enemy strike, instead of as a reaction. I also think the enemy falling on his back just because you bashed his sword away is a bit silly, but that, as well as this entire comment, might be entirely subjective.
You're not the only one I felt the same way, I was parrying in advance of the enemy attack and I just didn't like it as I didn't find it to be THAT good so I just stopped doing it. Reminds me of Nioh's parry system but at least those parries do more than just open up for a ripost.
Ironically, the only enemies in DS2 that I can parry consistently are the npc phantoms. No idea why.
I will say the addition (I think it was new) of shield breaking kind of replaced parrying for me.
Its sad, while I prefer the other games, I still enjoy DS2 very much, but people like Harris make me not want to discuss it with others.
@@TheLazarusOperationthey input read to hell and back
“Play Conditioning”
“You have a wall behind you. You cannot walk through walls. You have therefore been conditioned to walk forward.”
F*cking genius
He invented a term for something that exists.
It's like when Games Workshop tried to copyright "Space Marine".
Just hearing the name I went "that's the entire point of the Megaman X Sequelities video".
HBomberGuy: "Shields are bad!"
Me: "Ahh... so you can't parry..."
I suck at parrying in the Souls games, and I'd still never be stupid enough to say that the shields are bad.
you can parry with almost anything in ds2, even in ds1 you can parry with bare hand
I can't parry in DS1, but shields in DS1 were AMAZING.
This is absolutely hilarious because normally a comment like this would just be considered a meaningless playground insult but in the context of Hbomb, literally the entire first segment of the video was him explaining that the reason he doesn't like Estus healing is because he's almost comedically atrocious at using it
"bloodborne encourages offensive play"
i mean, yeah. and? its a different IP made for different reasons, why wouldnt it be different? bloodborne wants you to be quicker because its different to dark souls, if dark souls was that fast they would slow it down to change up the gameplay. how is this meant to prove his point?
It doesn't, he just desperately wants Bloodborne to be the natural next step for Dark Souls despite that wasn't the intention.
@@Weldedhodag So wrong to see bloodborne as the next step. If you inspect dark souls 1 and bloodborne very closely you can easily see that they are laterally(sidegrades) removed. The only things bloodborne improved on objectively(this is the important bit) was graphics(although ds1 artstyle is my favorite) and tons of small QoL changes that Harris probably doesn't fucking notice because he only scratches the surface.
I was so dissapointed by bloodborne (played it after ds1,ds2,ds3 for context) because it used the teleport in one of the worst possible ways. I get what it was meant to evoke (you go back to the dream/wake up) but in practice it was annoying as fuck.
@@tomvandalen2212 I think the rally system was a real improvement
@@taitia8619 not really since the rally system promotes something opposite of what dark souls 1 was about.
Like the rally system is cool but it wouldn't fit in dark souls 1 at all. That's what I meant by lateral. Most stuff doesn't translate. Cuz Bloodborne and dark souls 1 were supposed to be viewed as fully independent games but I think many people missed that point.
@@tomvandalen2212 I definitely agree that the rally system would not work well in DS1, I just meant that some cool new ideas came out of Bloodborne. I see what you mean about them being their own independent games, but I disagree that the only improvement that came out of Bloodborne was the updated graphics (though I also 100% agree on how terribly they utilized the teleport).
HBomberguy: Bloodborne doesn't use shields therefore Dark Souls 1 is bad.
Hbomberguy's estranged brother: Dark Souls 3 doesn't use guns there Bloodborne is bad.
@@tahraki4918 DS3 with guns would be funny as fuck.
@@TheStraightestWhitest I could see older guns like an Arquebus as a weapon in a Souls game, since the level of technology is vaguely 16th Century. In a Souls game, I imagine it would be a powerful ranged weapon that ignores armour, but would only get one shot before needing to reload and would have a reasonably long reload animation; making it risk vs reward.
@@matthewmuir8884 Yeah those earliest version might as well have been more extreme crossbows. Even more impactful, but even longer to reload.
@@TheStraightestWhitest Yeah; basically.
It's funny looking back at this now that Elden Ring is out, in which they added even more reasons to use shields. You can now counter after blocking a hit with the shield, which is a really nice addition. And of course some shields have special abilities.
I was actually having this same thought. No one will ever come back and examine these arguments.
Not to mention the No shield argument has always been stupid as hell as the devs intended you to use them. They’re in the game for a reason. They don’t want you to use machine guns, so they’re not in the games.
I enjoy using the barricade shield Ash of War.
Being able to sacrifice FP in order to preserve stamina on block is such a creative concept!
Wait, did he just say that the parrying sound is difficult to distinguish from the sounds of combat? It is quite literally the easiest sound in the game to recognize, except maybe the sound of your death.
Usually first time landing one people get startled by the sound to boot i've noticed.
the whole bit on parrying left me just a little bit angry, like he is blatantly misrepresenting dark souls 1, like I get that he does this a lot it seems in this video, but this is so easy to fact check you can literally do it within 5 minutes of dark souls. Im sorry HBomb but just because you suck at dark souls 1 doesn't make it bad, maybe you should git gud
yeah i actually hated darksouls 2 parring. felt slow and clumsy.
Whats interesting about the whole "dark souls 2 doesn't promote shield use" argument, is that Dark Souls 2 literally had a shield design contest before the game came out. If the game, or the developers, were trying to de-emphasize shield usage in the game, I dont think they would design a whole community contest around it.
Dude your Hbomber voice is my favorite thing on the internet
Dark souls 1 - Parried like a king up to Gywn.
Dark Souls 3 - Parrying was difficult but oh so rewarding to leave Pontiff Sulyvahn and Champion Gundyr on their knees.
...
Dark Souls 2? Why even bother when (1) it takes ages for an enemy to be open to the riposte, (2) in that time frame you'll just be beaten to death by the enemy spam, and
(3) oh yeah, that's a thing now, because s don't exist during many animations - something that didn't return to Dark Souls 3.
While I never used a shield in DS3 and learned to utilize it when needed in DS1 outside of parries, Dark Souls 2 somehow managed to bungle all preferences in one swing.
Stamina is the foundation to the issue with shields, being both too scarce and used up too much for proper defensive, blocking play. Given the number of enemies in DS2, only a fool relies entirely on blocking for all situations as you'll be rapidly guard broken.
Meanwhile, rolling is initially handicapped - to use Harris' wording but in a correct sense - by having s tied to agility, which is tagged onto the adaptability stat. It takes an egregious number of levels to ever reach the same efficacy as DS1, for no good reason other than seemingly the developers' misunderstanding of the crucial aspects of the original.
On the surface, separating vitality for equip load and the possibility of a defensive play style through heavier armor, while offering adaptability as a counter makes perfect sense. However, even the most upgraded armor is insufficient for what the game throws at you, and you're not supposed to be able to block everything, either. Rolling was a fundamental part of the original, only to be needlessly gimped, which only limits the player in contrast to Harris' whole point on the glory of DS2.
All one has to do is look at Dark Souls 3 and what stayed - it certainly wasn't adaptability. It's inane to paint DS2 as this flawless gem for the sake of being a contrarian, as though the game is being bullied and needs a white knight. Dark Souls 2 is by no means an awful game, and as someone who does overall enjoy it alongside the other titles in the seties, it is also a bit of a cunt that deserves that lashing it gets from the community.
It's actually even worse than Hbomb acting like his "play conditioning" is a trademark of his when others have better terms for it. Play conditioning isn't even his term to begin with. It's been around practically sense the dawn of critical conversation on games. SMB did play conditioning in the first level.
Despite the fan-bred masturbation on Dark Souls's near-divine gameplay, the complexity of the game mechanics (here defined by the relative difficulty of the risk/reward precautions) is very minimal. Shields disincentivize use of the dodge move, which, by requiring clear read and response, is probably the most common source of complexity in the game. This is likely what Hbomb is trying to say, he's just bad at it. It's like what you were saying with the summoning mechanics: summoning breaks certain aspects of the gameplay completely, to the point where almost nothing is left.
The defense that could be made from there is, of course, quantify how much more complex dodging is compared to blocking, and make an argument on whether dodging is really *that* more complex than blocking--and I don't think it is. But dissecting things on this level always leads to subjective response, there's almost no way to say that blocking *ruins* the game as summoning arguably does.
Both dodging and blocking have their own mechanics and management. Stamina management is much easier in DS2 if you roll, but you have to learn the roll timings for each enemy, each boss and each group of enemies. You also need to pump ADP if you want to roll.
Blocking is much easier to perform, but requires much more intensive stamina management. There will be many times when you block an attack and cannot attack back because you must lower your shield to let stamina regenerate first.
Additionally, in DS2, there are several other shield balancing tweaks:
-the majority of shields do not block 100% of physical damage, and percentages on elemental block are lower than in DS1
-shields which do block 100% physical damage tend to be heavy (the drang shield is 6 pounds, compared to the heater shield from ds1, which was 2)
-100% physical block shields tend to have high stat requirements (16 strength minimum, which is a pain on any build that isn't strength or quality build)
-some bosses and enemies essentially cannot be blocked with a shield, because they drain too much stamina if you fight them this way. Aava and Velstadt spring to mind
-very few shields give good block percentages on all elements, and dual-element damage is more common than in DS1 thanks to resin coatings and buffs on normal enemies
TheSamuraiGoomba I agree with all of this except the ADP boost lol, when I first saw that terrible stat I couldn't believe it. I've never made a character that levels it and I dodge just fine you just have to get used to it I would argue it's worse if you do level it cause if you make a new character you're used to the few extra Iframes it gives you and you get fucked
To give him the benefit of the doubt, he did say he wasn't sure and he did ask people in both his Bloodborne and DS2 video to correct him if there was already a name for it.
27:00 I feel like he's trolling at this point. He is talking about how you should dodge attacks while BLOCKING WITH HIS SWORD.
Also, this shit about how dodging > shields is an irrelevant argument since you can dodge while holding a shield. Dual-handing a weapon isn't even much of a benefit on certain builds because of the way scaling works. And holding a shield doesn't prevent you using offhand magic, pyromancies or miracles because you can just hit 1 button and swap to your other offhand item whenever you want to. You get three slots for both hands and that is intentional. There's a reason they upped the number and lowered durability. You're supposed to swap around.
Setting the situation up as dodging vs blocking is a bit of a false choice since you can do both on the same build, based on which would be the safest or best option at that moment. Sure, you CAN go full greatshield with havel set and never roll, or you CAN have no shield at all and power stance or two-hand your weapons, but you don't HAVE to. That's all down to build variety.
It's like Harris settled on one build, never experimented after that and decided this "most fun" build (for him) was the definitive way all people should play. Well, I think a hex dex build is the best way to play, as it's the most fun for me! So I guess I need to make up some BS about play conditioning! Ooh! The hex spell comes with 20some casts and does shitloads of damage for the entire game! Clearly this is the spell you're meant to use!
TheSamuraiGoomba Im going through Dark Souls 1 for the first time now, cosplaying as Artorias (black knight shield, claymore, and elite knight set until I get his gear), and I'm wondering how anyone can beat this game without shields, because of the restricted movement while locking on. I'm dreading my Ornstein or Ciaran playthroughs if I ever get around to them.
@@michaeljaradeh6213 There's something I find really neat about someone doing a "cosplay" of an in game character, and patchworking their costume together through unrelated items (like the ones you mentioned) even though the character's actual armor and weapons exist in game. I might have to do that.
Also, Curious how/if you ever made it to the Ornstein and Ciaran runs.
"The blue print for bloodborn, the blood print if you will and alot of creative decisions laid in Dark souls 2" that's hilarius, it is even like, comon knowledge that Miyazki and DS1 team where working on Bloodborne while others where Making DS2 with a totally diferent direction......
Lol this shield stuff is so vapid is he a mind reader or something? The way he so casually ascribes intent onto the developers is really frustrating. That Bloodborne shield description thing is just ludicrous it's far more likely to just be a cheeky reference to some of their design goals in this specific game not some thesis statement on how shields were a terrible mistake. And then later with the classes? Are you kidding me? The balancing between offense and defense characters where DPS characters sacrifice defense for a greater offense while Tanks do the opposite to make it fair. It's one of the most basic things and have been present since before video games.
Why does he imply Bloodborne took things from DS 2 when the game director of DS 1 went straight on to work on Bloodborne while a new director worked on DS2? They were being made largely at the same time by separate teams. That's where the whole b-team thing comes from does he not know this?
Considering, that Miyazaki worked on DS3 right after Bloodborne. And that DS3, despite being faster than other Souls games, still utilizes the shield mechanic, it's safe to assume, that the shield description in BB is just a joke that is referencing how the BB gameplay is different from the gameplay that the players might've got accustomed to by playing DeS/DaS.
In regards to DS2 director - the game had 2 of those, Tomohiro Shibuya and Yui Tanimura. By some rumors/speculation, Shibuya wasn't up to the task and it was up to Tanimura to salvage the project, which might explain why DS2 is, well, DS2. But, let me reiterate, it's probably just speculation. At least, I wasn't able to find any reliable source for this information in written form. It could very well be, that the information came from some of ENB's LP videos, that he did after the release of DS2. He was one of several people, who worked on a DS2 official guide, and they, likely, had to interact with from during the production of said guide.
Well, if anyone would know about our souls, it's Hbomber... ... he's a massive our soul.
"Tell me how effective the GUNS are in Dark Souls".
Stop, stop! He's already dead!
21:40 only one class starting with a shield doesn't mean shields are bad or that the devs didn't want you to use shields. Only one class starts with a shield because DS2 has better/different shield balancing.
A lot of players in DS1 started with a standard warrior class with a shield, and that shield was good enough (actually, very good) so as to last the entire game. DS2 wants you to earn the better shields by achievement. They still give you shields though. Every starting class can get the Crimson Parma as soon as they reach Majula. It gives 75% physical reduction, which is more than it sounds like in practice. And this is available for all classes.
Only one class starting with a shield is important for balance, because that's primarily why you'd pick that class. The stone parma is pretty nice as an early shield. If the knight had a shield, there'd be almost no reason to pick the warrior class. Same for the others. All of the other classes have something unique to offer, but the warrior only has a good shield, some good armor and decent combat stats. You don't get any miracles, extra items, spells or even a good sword. It's such a silly thing to point out as some kind of argument against shields. It's still a good class to pick btw because good shields are more rare than good weapons, and the starting stats are good.
DS2 made classes actually matter at the start of the game by making the stat allocation a lot more specialized and differentiating their gear more as well. That's an argument Harris could have made for why DS2 is a good game, but no. He'd rather bitch about >muh shields.
And his argument is quiet a stretch since he's just make nebulous claims for those design choice and shove his opinion into designer's mouth. Again, it's all about present his personal opinion as facts and that's a terrible quality he present through out his DS2 video.
I agree with everything except the last bit, that DS2 "made classes actually matter at the start of the game." Each starting class is definitely more unique, but I would argue that it matters less in DS2 what you start with than in DS1. I say that because of the introduction of Soul Vessels that allow you to reallocate points. It doesn't matter what you start with. Say you reach level 100 as a Knight, but get sick of a Strength build and want to try Magic. As long as you have a Soul Vessel, you can go to the Firekeepers, trade that in and create a perfectly viable magic build even though the Knight only starts with 3 Int. By level 100, you have so many points that what class you started with is completely irrelevant.
A bit of an anecdote here, but every new character I start, I always make an Explorer. No matter what build I want to create, I will make an Explorer. Why? I do it because it starts with the most ADP. It starts with Witching Urns, Aromatic Ooze, and a Pharos Lockstone. I do it because I know I will be able to go back later at a higher level and choose what I kind of build I want to play with in that moment, whether it be Strength, Dex, Quality, Magic, Miracles, Hexes, Pryo, or a combination of any of them. The fact that I chose an Explorer to start will not hurt in my choices in any way, despite their low starting stats.
(Side note: I love DS2. It is probably my favorite overall in the Souls series, and 2nd favorite when I throw in Bloodborne. It has a lot of elements to it that are my favorite, including the introduction of a respec with the Soul Vessel. That being said. I don't see the need to defend it to every inch of its core. Despite it being my favorite for a lot of the features it included, it has some objectively poor design. It has a lot of glaring issues that the other games do not have. World design is a massive one. I like DS2 the best because it offers the most in terms of replayability with the best build variety and viability, power stance, the most options for fashion, significant NG+ changes among other things. But I'm not going to sit there and defend the obvious flaws the game has.)
@Hiraeth
To be fair, the quote does say "at the start of the game." They could easily agree that by the end of the game it no longer matters, but I think they're saying that it does make a bigger difference at the beginning, before you get access to all the items and weapons and souls you want, since Dark Souls 2 seems to make it take longer to get to the good stuff, for the most part, so you'll be stuck with a relative lack of choice for far longer than in the first game, so being able to start with something good matters more.
TheSamuraiGoomba all classes start off with shitty weapons, guess that means they don't want you using weapons?
+TheSamuraiGoomba Considering blows needed to be blocked with the shield to earn that 75% reduction I'd argue it's far less than it sounds like and than was warranted. Comes down to preference though, there are times where I would prefer these games just made sense rather than like other action games and other games in the RPG genre trying to 'balance' blocking.
Playing with shield and zweihander is something I've found intensely satisfying in Darksouls. You start out weak and helpless, and now you can one-hand a sword so big it's name is "Two Hander" while laughing off hits from big huge enemies as they bounce off your shield.
He just sounds so excited in how right he thinks he is.
I loved the "honest admission" come-back to Harris' comment on the shield in Bloodborne.
I love how, if you follow Harris' own logic, or what remains of it, anyway; the very existence of Dark Souls 3 character select option basically destroys everything he has ever said about the Dark Souls and Bloodborne games. Which is probably why he never made a video on it, I suppose.
I found a shield in LITERALLY 5 seconds in Dark Souls two...WHY IS THIS EVEN AN ARGUMENT?!
Cuz shields are part of the patriarchy and oppress colored people... Just using his politics to steelman his point. I lost brain cells saying that
@@mr.m2914 XD Very Nice
I just want to mention... Harris obtusely refers to the phrase "not if they engender passivity" as being 'genius'. But it not only isn't genius, it's just a mistranslation.
In Japanese the description says 「盾はよい。だが、過信することなかれ」
That doesn't mean "Shields are nice, but not if...(blah blah)" It means "Shields are good. However, do not be overconfident [with them]."
Much more nuanced than Harris's blind crusade.
The grammar is medieval, so the translator's failure is understandable（なかれ is the imperative form of なし in classical Japanese). But he was clearly using fancy English words to puff himself up and disguise (from his bosses?) the fact that he didn't quite know what the Japanese text really meant.
One more example of this silly world of Rian Johnsons, where people get paid to be bad at what they do.
I like how the existence of Sekiro and the expanded improved blocking of Elden Ring completely shatters Harris' "shield and blocking not fun" argument. The developers made Dark Souls and Elden Ring account for a plethora of different playstyles and approaches, meanwhile Bloodborne and Sekiro are focused on specific mechanics and going more in depth with them, while sacrificing build variety. Both approaches are valid and great in their own way. Yet Harris treats the two styles as the same thing, which is his failing.
I think it's worth noting, in regards to Harris' Fallout 3 video, that the vast majority of his points and critiques have been floating around the internet for many many years before he made it. With boards like No Mutants Allowed and the chans making pretty much every point and criticism that he did, spaced out over the years, it seems like all Hbomb really did was crib them from various places on the internet (almost word for word) and condense them into a single video. I would not be surprised in the least to learn that he actually did very little playing of the game himself, and simply compiled all of this info together under the guise of 'research' and used it himself without citing where he got it or from whom, due to the fact that so many people have made similar statements regarding the game already in so many different ways.
I'd assume he just came to the same conclusions himself, if not for his Dark Souls 2 video. Where he is very intellectually dishonest, stretches all of his points, and like you said 'Doesn't put the work in'. It's clear from the start that he has actually played very little of the game, and I don't for a minute think that he was willing to actually go back and play all of the other Fallout titles, plus 3, to properly formulate that ultimately well reasoned video.
I actually really wish you would examine that Bloodborne video now. Having watched up to this video so far I've come to start questioning my enjoyment of his videos, specifically that one. I watched that and Joseph Anderson's videos on it and it made me want to do my own reviews, but if all of that video is bullshit...that has me questioning things.
I still enjoy a lot of his videos. He can make good content; his Bloodborne and DS2 videos were not his finest hour.
What made me realize his Bloodborne video was bad was not the shield argument, but the blatant misrepresentation of Ocarina of Time; with which he contrasted the Souls series in order to make a point of Dark Souls games being "inherently unfair" or something like that. As a Zelda fan, I noticed a lot of his weird points and inaccuracies for what they were.
For instance, he talked about how, because of the way Souls games are, he got paranoid about floor tiles in one area that turned out to be completely normal. Guess what? In Ocarina of Time, some floor tiles levitate and attack Link.
He thinks play conditioning is a new thing? The most famous example of it is from the first Metroid game? How could he claim good game design is a brand new idea. I like blood borne but that's just stupid
Y can't Metroid crawl? The answer is finally diwcovered: play conditioning
I was introduced to hbomber's channel through the Fallout 3 video, and thought he would be an awesome critic.
How very wrong I was, and very glad I am to have found this channel now. After seeing multiple of his videos and multiple of yours, you are clearly a more consistently capable arguer. +1 subs!
“Tell me how good guns are in dark souls”
Damn that line hit lmao
The sawed-off in GoW3 was an admission by the developers that the first 2 games were SHIT. - Harris
If a fromsoft game has made me use a shield the most it was playing dark souls 2 cause how horrible the rolling became. Seems odd that he's saying it pushes you to not use one when I had exact opposite experience.
No kidding. Coming from DaS1 (where I dodged quite a lot), I couldn't seem to dodge _anything_ in DaS2. The s don't match up well with the animations, and what's worse, with the s being stat-dependent, you don't have *ANY* visual feedback (other than the trial and error of whiffing dodges) on when your s end for your current ADP. It was such an awful decision.
Shimeji detected!
Reminded and embarrassed about having a comment/watching this whocare video that is too long tbh. Watched too much UA-cam then. Play kings field(1995) for survival horror kino.
@@LizardWizardoAo Tbh I'm only watching this series due to its vague relation to matthewmatosis, I'm so hyped to play whatever that guy is going to create.
Thanks for the rec, I'd certainly like to.
“You see guys, the only real Halo game is Halo 3: ODST... though being a spin-off, you can clearly see (laughing) that shields (more laughing) are not in the game, and it clearly pushes you toward the best play style (goes on about how this is all his opinion) which is sniping and sneaking. The lower health clearly embodies the fact that we are just humans, and are weak. This goes along with the narrative as pushed in these books (laughter) that were released years after!”
With the unlimited healing items Harris so fucking adores, it makes shield builds even more viable. As what little damage you take can be healed with said unlimited healing, making each instance of combat more about immediate survival and victory, unlike dark souls 1 much more resource driven combat.
As this series goes on, it further cements in my mind that Harris is a contemptuous liar.
This series gave me so much insight, not only on the soulsborne series, but on seeing things from an unbiased perspective. Your way of thinking has really left an impression on me. Thank you, MauLer.
After watching so far, I don't even feel the need to play it. You have made such an in depth cover of the game that I feel I have already experienced the entire game. Please do continue doing things like this, becasuse this is an amazing series. From an old DS1 player I really feel likem this video series covers most of the game as a whole. I really hope to see more videos like this series. Keep up the amazing work!
"Tell me how effective the guns* are in Dark Souls." Brilliant.
Can you put all of these into one ten hour video and call it "Dark Souls 2 is Garbage, and here's why?"
Boone Bluemel he wasn’t really arguing against dark souls 2 it self but more just to bomberman’s terrible argumentative skills
Boone Bluemel that’s not too fair on hbomb, he does have a few good videos where his style of overdramatization actually fits the theme(something which needs to have been established as bad), see the fallout 3 video for more details
In this particular instance, he had multiple overlaying issues in making the video, all starting from the fact that he didn’t even have a good reason to make this video to begin with. This in turn made all of his points feel just the same: flimsy and lacking in substance
So..... "Hbomberman Is Garbage, And Here's Why"?
ah yes, the sifposter himself
Well DS2 is garbage so
This is such a well thought out and effective deconstruction. Loving this series.
christ the night if it wasnt for mauler's commentary I don't think I could get through these, the contempt towards anyone who doesnt follow this eXaCt SeNtImEnT is palpable, if I hadn't played any dark souls games before, the video by hbomber would just make me shy away from ever even trying any of them, damn
As someone who started out with DS3 and played with a shield I got at the beginning that blocked 95 damage despite everyone in my stream telling me that shields are trash somehow... this argument triggers me
The best point made in this video is that they literally made Dark Souls 3 without keeping anything from Dark Souls 2 aside from a few random items. I think that says a lot about Dark Souls 2.
young me watched HBombs video and didn't know any better than to try and force myself to see what he saw in DS2 and that just never happened
I always got the impression that he liked ds2 because the obscene health regen made it easier to play like a hack n slash, which made it more like the devil may cry games that he said were his favorite earlier.
Old video but i digress
16:00
That is to say nothing of the lore implications of the shield. The running theme is that a more aggressive, agile and proactive fighting style was required to combat the beasts of Yarnham. The various different hunter's attire you come across throughout emphasizes balancing protection without compromising movement and speed. Further evidenced by the dead knights in plate armor scattered throughout the Chalice Dungeons, showing that a more defensive approach to combat is detrimental.
The item description is bang on; they did engender passivity...withing the confines of the Bloodborne cannon. Saying that the item description is some veiled attempt by FromSoft towards a mechanic in a previous title is ludicrous.
Off the back of that, the whole argument against shields runs completely contrary to HBomber's assertion about "guys in armor". A lot of his favorite bosses...use shields. If the game was meant to excel in these areas, why would the bosses be given at item that, according to him, are not the right way to play?
If the game is firing on all cylinders when your against an armored foe and the "best" or "optimal" way to utilize the game's mechanics for this are to not use a shield, why do a good portion of enemies and bosses use shields? The Looking Glass Knight, Throne Watcher and Defender, Dragonriders x3, Ruin Sentinels and the Pursuers all utilize shields.
So, in HBomber's example, these are objectively poorly designed bosses due to the fact they are using shields and not maximizing the potential of the design of Dark Souls 2...and yet, they seem to get a pass on this as they are "Guys in armor" that can be fought one on one.
Lastly (because this is getting a little out of hand) the argument about damage reduction on block and low health when starting. As a new player, I personally found it a much better trade off when learning the mechanics to take 15% of a strike's total damage because I blocked it, rather than take 100% damage from it because I don't understand roll timings or how to parry.
Yeah, you can grind it out and adapt to these skills, but as a Souls noob I was far more interested in finding a method and set of tactics that worked for me and my playstyle so I could sink my teeth into the bulk of the game. The last thing I wanted to do was hamstring myself with a playstyle that didn't work for me.
Following HBomber's advice, I would have probably got destroyed over and over in the opening areas trying to figure out parry timings and how to dodge, and given up on the game due to frustration. Playing with a shield eventually let me see attack timings and openings, eventually giving me the confidence I needed to try 2 handing my weapon and getting my dodge game on. This made the point where I could play the game more closely to what HBomber considers the ideal way to play, a hell of a lot more rewarding. I had progressed from a stoic shield wall to an agile powerhouse through a self-created progression system, allowing me to appreciate the mechanics of the combat on a deeper, more fulfilling level and making me feel a meaningful sense of accomplishment.
When I was new to the Souls series - that is, during my time spent on DKS1- I only built glass cannon builds. This led to a lot of frustration because I'm not very good, and I was even worse at the time. It's amazing to me that I even managed to get to Nito on one of my six separate characters. Now, here, in DKS3, I've got builds that have like 15 vigor so I'm still a glass cannon and I should probably fix that.
This part is alot more opinionated, it's obvious Hbomber prefers DS2 and Mauler prefers DS1, but since it's kept as opinion based it's fine. The claim that shields were bad for players and a weakness Fromsoft wanted to phase out is actually hilarious. If anyone truly believes that, play through DS1 again with a greatshield, preferably Havel's or Artorias, and see how challenging anything is. Shields are also plenty useable in 2 and I highly recommend one for the starter area since many enemies will outrange you with spears, halberds, and greatswords. You can block a hit you probably take because ADP is too low at that point, and return attack for an easy kill. You don't need 100% block, especially when you can potentially sustain infinitely with lifegems.
going back and watching this it's wild how much better ds1 looks compared to ds2 graphically
"We are born of the shield, made men by the shield, undone by the shield. Fear the Old SHIELD...."- Harris of Byrgenwerth
You know, watching through this series, I really don’t think Harris actually likes Soulsbourne games. He doesn’t like interconnectivity in the world or having too many options in how to approach a scenario. He frequently laments “doomed” runs, and having no choice but to die, and etc.
It really feels like he made it through DS1 pissing and crying, and when DS2 came out, he had prior experience so it felt easier.
There’s an embarrassment of riches for healing options, so no more doomed runs, most enemy encounters are just mobs of basics, so he gets gratification from easily killing a lot of enemies, and there are clear endpoints and warping available immediately, so he doesn’t have to worry about traveling through the unknown extensively.
Add to that him frequently saying he couldn’t do things in DS2 and him marveling at being able to skip 50% of the game, and it really feels like he just wants to get it done and over with. Which is such a depressing way of approach FromSoft games
You hit the nail on the head
Oh god, plus 100 for that Vegeta311 clip!
I do remeber an interview with Miyazaki remarking on wanting to move from shields in a future games as the turtling might have been too much. BB came out right after but I don't think he meant it as severe as HB suggests. More like open pondering. The flavor text is to vague to prove an admission of guilt by the team.
I don't get what his hateboner for shields is, ds2 has some of the most unique ones! #ButterflyShieldBestShield
"dear god my entire world is ending"
if they're hollow enough to die permanently, then there's no way a thought that complicated is going through their dust-filled skulls. if they are capable of thought, then they just spawn back at a bonfire, because that's how the fucking undead curse works. the thing that makes it a curse in the first place is that your world CAN'T end, it is the curse of immortality.
Thanks for making this series.
Couldn't agree more about Hbomberguy's Fallout 3 video. I wish he made well thought out videos like that one.
My first DS1 Completion was in full Havels and Fat Rolling/white nuckeling my Great Shield and black night sword. I guess my experience was wrong. Crazy how I still saw the same end credits screen as Harris...
Hbomb is dumb with his statement thinking dks2 inspired bborne. Bborne was made AT THE SAME TIME as 2 and dks2 was made by the b team while the main team made bborne
"Play conditioning" is just a made up word that means the same thing as conveyance.
There's no way to really force all players into one particular, rigid style of play in a game as open ended as Dark Souls. That's what makes games enjoyable: freedom of choice and player expression. Even in a less open-ended game like Doom or Halo, you have many weapons to choose from and will ultimately develop a preference for certain ones, not to mention that each player develops their own way of fighting (regardless of how unique or optimal it is, even though most "hardcore" players strive to play the best way possible).
All DS2 really conveys is fundamental shit like "the game can be rather challenging and often even unfair", "you're encouraged to look through every nook and cranny of the world in order to progress", and "combat is weighty and taking damage hurts more than in most games". Granted, DS2 also teaches you awful lessons that are misrepresentative of the Dark Souls series such as "ambush rooms full with mobs is par for the course in Dark Souls", "you really should be summoning in this area", and "don't worry about dying, here's some pop rocks that'll heal you slowly."
HBomberGuy must absolutely hate The Rising of the Shield Hero. Figures
God forbid he plays Shovel Knight one of these days. He would be constantly shitting on the romantic plot with Shield Knight.
"In Elden Ring they added a counter attack similar to a riposte while you are shielded up without the risk of the parry mechanic. Therefore the devs made the statement that removing the shields in Bloodborne was a bad design." His statements aged like a fine turd. xD
It's kinda hilarious how much of his argument hinges on extrapolations stemming from flavor text, was he just padding the video?
I'll say this - I was legit furious they removed Power Stance in DS3. That mechanic and all the different builds you could create with it were one of the reasons I would replay through DS2. The game as a lot of flaws, but I legit loved the power stance. Also, they removed poise... Dark Souls 3 is such a weird game, which honestly feels more like Demon's Souls 2.
The removal of power stance was a tragedy
Love the fact that you get more and more savage the further on in the series we go x)
Because of these kind of videos I really want to play/try Dark Souls
Hey. 2 years later I got Dark Souls remastered from a friend and I had alot of fun but I'm stuck on the 2nd boss.
Wished there was a bond fire in front of the fog wall so I don't have to go through an army and might not have given up there.
Me typing this in does make me go for another round.
Wish me luck.
Do you think someone had to tell Harris that he didn’t like shields? Or did he find that out by playing the game just like everyone else does to find their play style?
One of the strangest arguments HBomberguy makes is:
„When you start with a shield, the game only gives you a bad weapon. It shows, that using a shield hinders you.“
WHAT?!?
Isn‘t it the exact other way around? If they give you a worse weapon, when giving you a shield, doesn‘t that tell you that a shield is good, and the weapon needs to be worse to balance the class?
That‘s how games have been balanced for AGES! If you give somebody on item that is worse than in all other classes (in this case the sword), that means that class has something good (in this case: the shield) that other classes don‘t have!
Harris is smart enough to know how balancing works… he just seems to forget here.
These videos actually helped me learn why I was so good at bloodborne yet so bad at dark souls
Thanks mauler
I love Harris's weird mental gymnastics where he believes that every game From Software makes is somehow them apologizing for the game that came before, but only insofar as it supports his narrative
Back when Bloodborne was called Project Beast, the first trailer shows many instances of the player raising their weapons to block incoming attacks.
It's far more likely that they considered how to implement mechanics from the previous games they made only to remove some of them as they realized it didn't mesh well with the direction this new project was aiming for rather than a blunt reaction to shields having been source of a problematic playstyle, altho obviously, I wouldn't really know.
Not that it necessarily means much, they've carried plenty shit designs from one game to the next, but I suppose I'm getting too subjective now.
His whispery whimsical affectations really start to grate after a while. Especially once you get a sense of how smug and self-satisfied he's often being.
11:44 just gold
After watching other MauLer and HBomb videos, it has become clear that MauLer is a critic who happens to be entertaining where Harris is an entertainer who sometimes has critical analyses in his videos. I think that's what I'm trying to say, at least.
Well
He may be wrong but his vids were fun to listen too
So ya I say your right
5 minutes in, lemme be a voice here: I NEVER USE SHEILDS, except to parry. I use a buckler. Not for blocking.
You can parry without shields.
"Madman's Knowledge is a resource in Bloodborne that represents how close you come to the eldritch truth. Hunters and enemies who have gone mad are generally really strong and coming closer to the eldritch truth by forsaking your humanity is a canonical advantage. This I feel is an admission of the dev's part, that you should kill all the NPC's in Bloodborne and go through the Souls series without ever using humanities." -Harris, probably
One of my lifelong regrets will always be Wiki Scumming DS1 when I was younger. After playing the series for so long now I’d love to play that game fresh again.
I wonder if he thinks Armored Core 6 is fromsoft admitting that i-frames were a bad idea.
Oh 110%, in the same way Sekiro was them admitting you only should have one option for melee weapons. Surprised it took them 5 games to figure that one out.
@@Gspi1005 It's also the same say how, Elden Ring, demonstrates they were wrong about making tight single player experiences in hub/interconnected worlds. It's obvious they learned their silly misguided lesson and finally made an open world game!
I'm glad you brought up Fallout 3. " In defense of DS2 is not the only half-assed video H-bomb has done.
Half assed? I felt the video was pretty good at showing the problems with the game in comparison to the others, especially in regards to story. It is far less subjective than his BB or DS2 video.
11:45 That character name had me dying 😂
This guy really have a grudge against shield. This trigger my inner Tarkus.
"But if it"
Hearing you stumble on that at the end always makes me laugh.