Good guy timestamps 00:00 INTRO 1:29 Part 1: HEALING 9:27 Part 2: ENEMY DESIGN 24:12 Part 3A: WORLD DESIGN (Interconnectedness) 32:30 Part 3B: WORLD DESIGN (Non-Linearity) 43:54 Part 4: PLAY CONDITIONING 50:22 Part 5: STORY COMPARISON 1:06:02 Part 6: THE DLC & SCHOLAR OF THE FIRST SIN 1:10:45 CONCLUSION
I think you sell the fight with Gwyn really short by saying the best they could do was put some sad music over it. A lot of the things you praise about Vendrick apply to Gwyn as well. Gwyn is hyped up for the entire game as a literal god among men, with a title like "The Lord of Sunlight" that can shoot Zeus-style lightning bolts powerful enough to rip the scales off of dragons. When you finally get there he doesn't even get an intro cutscene like 99% of the bosses do; you enter the fog gate and this withered old man just mindlessly charges you. His name is changed to "Lord of Cinder" and it's implied that his power, over the long course of guarding the first flame, dwindled tremendously. You go in expecting this huge final boss but instead it's a rather simple one-on-one duel against a "god" so weak you can parry his ass and riposte him into oblivion. Don't get me wrong, I love Dark Souls 2 and I really like what they did with Vendrick, but let's not act like Gwyn's presentation wasn't just as good, if for different reasons.
>that can shoot Zeus-style lightning bolts powerful enough to rip the scales off of dragons you're greatly overbloating the implication of his power, probably because you've watched copious amounts of lore videos providing ideas or interpretations of it. However, nothing we see in the intro cutscene implies he was uniquely powerful at all; literally every lightning bolt launched at the dragon does as much damage as his. His bossfight doesn't have a cutscene, and is extremely streamlined is because the second half of the game was notoriously rushed, not because of some deeper reason theorists desperately use mental gymnastics to try and claim.
jerkin off you're tripping. loreists are what I hate most about DS because they rarely agree and they all swear they're right, but he was still a lord. we're meant to have high expectations to get there and be let down. he's a husk now. he split his lord soul and burned the rest fighting off entropy for his whole universe. there's no gymnastics necessary. it's laid out for you plain as day.
I would've enjoyed the story elements of Vendrick's hollowed state if he were actually a hollow, who's weak and killing him would be like putting down a suffering pet. But instead he's a super-powered gank-machine with a stupid gimmick, unless you hunt down extremely out of place items that make it so that your attacks can damage him. TL;DR if you're going to connect story and gameplay, do it, don't just talk about it.
+A Spooky Dog funny how people like to act like Gwyn was supposed to be unstoppable but was a joke, in reality he was the hardest boss unless you mastered parrying. He didn't seem like the ultimate personification of one of the two central themes of Dark Souls, one being duality and the other which Gwyn supposedly is the incarnation of, being entropy. The sad music was good but he didn't seem withered, he was relentless and you had to hold him back using the stupid pillars in his boss room, trash design. Really Vendrick was a much better iteration on everything people value about Gwyn.
He said he *is* a larger than life character who was corrupted by the abyss, and I do see your point. But just like his point, and I realize you're probably joking, but he isn't a Dragon that just takes off, does fire or toxic breath attack, who also destroys your armor. He doesn't summon other bosses like the BITC- I mean Elana infinitely like some hoe or slu-, nor does he stand as tall and have as great a reach as the Giant Lord. He ain't floating around spamming spells like the Darklurker. He jumps, and leaps, albeit greater distances than the player, he swings and hurls his body around but still maintains "human" motions. He is a proper Dark Souls "knight fight". And yes, my last name is Obvious, you may refer to me as Captain or Sir.
@@daringdarius5686 so "equal footing" is based on how the fight looks? Not taking into account the fact that mechanically, he does not share ANYTHING with you. If you remove textures and graphics from the artorias fight, till you're left with just the hitboxes. He would function(mechanically) the same way that a dragon or any giant boss would. Because harris points make no sense and he hasn't defined them at all. What does "equal footing" mean to him? I dunno I'm left to guess.
@@bigbear5767 Firstly... I don't think I mentioned "equal footing" anywhere, not sure if you're quoting me or the video, don't even think it's been said in the thread. Secondly, it's not equal footing. Didn't even remotely claim this..IT'S A BOSS FIGHT! Of course the odds are in the boss' favor! You have to use skill, intelligence, cunning, tricks or all of the above! It ISN'T on equal footing. Someone who has specced into a pyromancer has a different moveset than a faith/dex build. Or a greatshield vigor build. Or an UGS build. Different mechanics, doesn't mean other players are any less human. (Subtle nod to farrong UGS and the flaming dual Ultra-Cheese great sword in DS3) BUT! If you were to consider if it's more "fair" or *more equal* to fight artorias, a humanoid grounded, who can't hit you from afar (he must lunge at you), doesn't have access to poison, doesn't breathe fire, doesn't use sorceries or miracles, can't swim in poison unaffected or have a posse to back him up, doesn't fly or heal himself or summon other monsters, and instead just has a big o'le sword, some high stats and some big movements and swings, yea. I'd definitely say fighting artorias is more fair than sinh, or midir, or the ancient dragon, or the dark lurker, or Elana (seriously FUCK Elana) or *name 50%+ boss fights of any dark souls game*. It is more "equal" than *other bosses*. Ya both got big shanking tools, somebody to shank and a reason not to get shanked. Lastly on the topic of hitboxes: Ummm... If you think a giant in the game is capable of the dexterity and flexibility required to jump up, do front flips and land, at that speed I mean okay. Ditto goes for the dragons. They could be flying in loop de loops, but their turning circle wouldn't be as compact and quick nor anything like this. If you scale a dragon that large, they would be moving at speeds, in a circle, upwards of 100 mph, meaning they can easily charge you at probably 300mph+. Hint: you don't want that in a game. That's, uhh, kinda fast. I think they move at 30mph->60mph at most in the games.
@@daringdarius5686 sorry, I thought you were up to date. Yes harris absolutely said "equal footing" to describe the artorias fight, many times if I remember correctly. I'm saying that that makes absolutely no sense. My hitbox argument still stands. Take any large or fast moving boss and his rules also apply to them and he doesn't have anything that you have other than armor and a sword. Harris must do anything to push this narrative that ds2 is simply better. But there is a problem, he also liked the artorias fight, so how can he make an exception for him? Easy create this baseless idea that artorias somehow has something in common with ds2s design. Just watch maulers series for Christ sakes. He literally goes over word for word why he's wrong. Have you looked at the artorias fight? Have you seen his moves? He has an insane gap closer. He has an arial attack were he jumps 10 feet in the air, extremely fast swings with very short tells unlike the player. And the way he dodges is absolute insanity. Harris does a very bad job explaining what he actually means by him being your "equal". I think he means any humanoid with limbs and a head. But even that doesn't really make sense since, again, you two have very different mechanics and his fighting style is absolutely nuts.
It's a shit video about a shit game, he doesn't even defend it in the least convincing way possible, almost everything he says is objectively wrong lmao
@@stevencleere4912 "Probably because Hbomb's political views aren't really that controversial. " They kind of are in the gaming's community at least sadly.
@@Arkayjiya That's because he's wildly flailing about trying to justify Dark Souls 2, which he does by constantly lying about Dark Souls 1 and saying that 2 is better than 1.
Almost all areas have some permadeath enemies. But somehow the poisonguys are treated as they are an admission of error by the developers. going by that logic the gargoyles in Arnor Londo are a mistake? Or the necromancers in the catacombs? Or maybe put some poison resist on and the poison guys are not a real trouble. And as you slay them you make a testament on how you conquered the area. like all other permadeath enemies.
@@Sapeidra its toxic you need to resist, and they will overwhelm pretty much any toxic resist you can get before them. Doesn't help that their toxic is way worse than any other toxic.
@@Ornithopter470 Poison and toxic are different status conditions, but your poison resistance stat governs your toxic resistance and your normal poison resistance. If you explore you can find enough clothing to tank more than 1 dart without the bar filling up, or find the spider shield if you didn't start bandit class.
@@SheheenFans didn't know that both checked poison resist. And you can tank one dart with naked, I think. Would have to check that. Issue is that you normally get at least 2.
Start playing this game sober and get progressively more drunk as you play to get the full progressive hollowing experience. When you get good and drunk you end up in places in the game with no idea how you got there or how to get back. It’s meta as fuck.
He probably refers to the fact that all his attacks are straightforward and easy to dodge when you get the hang of it. He's not ridiculous like he jumps up in the air and does a 6 attack combo like slave knight gael
martijn p woah it's almost like artorias isn't the final boss for like the whole souls series excluding bloodborne. Gee I wonder why the series known for difficulty has a hard final boss which does have patterns that can be understood just people would rather complain...
Aaron Mizener i don’t think they meant it as an insult to gael, nobody is denying that his fight is great, but it’s certainly nothing you’d ever have seen a player doing, for instance, as a weapon art (excluding gael’s executioner blade, which, let’s face it, has a much more watered down version of what gael does)
I just love hearing you gush about "honorable duel" kind of fights vs enemies on equal footing knowing 2 years later Sekiro would come out being essentially a whole game about that.
@@rekiu1314 what? that is literally the whole point of sekiro, to be fighting enemies on actual 1-on-1 sword fights instead of the weird dodge-and-hit dance you do in soulsborne. literally the only exception to this is demon of hatred
"Artorias isn't ridiculous" queue footage of Artorias spin-jumping with a big fuckoff sword before doing a superhero landing that creates a small crater
Tbf that's actually something the player can do if you use his weapon. An invader in full Artorius gear could do the same thing. Given we can use 500 lb Ultra Greatswords that isn't surprising.
beginning January 1st I played through, for the first time, DS1, DS2, DS3, Bloodborne and the Demon's Souls remake, and I can say with confidence that Dark Souls 2 is a video game.
few things in the souls series devastated me as much as fighting all the way to the bottom of the tomb of the giants before having placed the lordvessel (as i was struggling with smough and ornstein and wanted to level my character more to help improve my odds) only to find that fucking golden mist, THEN realising i had to climb all the way back out again
Holy shit, same kinda thing happened during my first playthrough. There was a point where I didn't know where I was supposed to go next, so I thought, "Oh, maybe I'm supposed to go further and further down into the pitch-black skeleton pit." Through much suffering, I finally hit a roadblock when I found that wall of piss mist, and then a horrific realization set in that I can't teleport back to the surface and have to run all the way back up.
The thing that kills me about that is you can see the bed of chaos and ash lake from deep in the tomb, why the fuck didn't they just connect these areas.
"But Dark Souls 1 is so great - it's like a Metroidvania where you can go anywhere and then everything just comes together brilliantly" 😂 (except when it doesn't)
In a game with such a focus on every character suffering from dementia that leaves them wondering where they are and what they're doing, no one thinks to wonder whether asking "Wait, how did I get here from there?" is the entire freaking point, lol
The way I’ve barely heard the name of most of these games but I’ve spent critical hours of my life watching every single 65 hour essay on all of them… this guy can talk.
@@aaronbennett4767 I could if it's properly supported. You realize he contradicts himself in this video several times? And that's not even getting into the deceptive editing and constant strawmanning re: Matthewmatosis.
hu, yeah I only played scholar edition and it was one my first souls game (previously beat demons and reached bloodmoon in bloodborne), loved it and I don't think its a problem to recomend this version, it's hard yeah but thats the point if you are buying this game. It might actually be harder for people who played the normal OG version first bc it messes with expectations maybe?
Wait, holdup. So the scholar of the first sin version is harder? This was not made clear to me when I got it, no wonder I had more trouble than my homies and they didn't know what I was talking about. Thanks for the new cope for an old wound lol.
it redid a bunch of enemy placements, generally with the goal of making a replay rewarding & still challenging to those who already played the original. this kind of inherently makes it harder, as its a response to it's own original design. scholar also has way more enemies in general, as in the amount of bodies on screen at any given point.
I'd say some areas are easier in vanilla, some harder in Scholar. Scholar made the path to the Ancient Dragon a cakewalk and if you have a torch equipped for the Duke's Dear Freja she becomes a complete joke. Other areas, I wouldn't call difficult but they were certainly tedious to get through, particularly with enemies being able to cancel the fog wall animation.
I usually like Hbomb's videos, and while I agree that Dark Souls 2 is good, I just can't agree with some of his takes on Dark Souls 1 here. Like for instance about the map; he finds it more interesting that it connects in ways that don't make sense, but that to me just seems like regular video game fair. The interconnectedness of Dark Souls 1 was much more impressive to me, as that takes more effort to pull off, and it's also a great feeling learning how to navigate the dangerous world in new and faster ways. It feels really memorable and rewarding finding a new path to the hub when you haven't unlocked warp yet and could really use that shortcut.
He instead of telling how Dark souls story is complex and deep and everything he said it like was saying to a child go bells then kill lords then link fire which he skipped over all the details that made DS 1 good in the first place then he starts in DS 2 saying the details like it is so biased which i don't like . He makes this thing on combat world and everything instead of comparing them fair he is just biased
Exactly, many things he's saying that he likes less in DS1 than in DS2 are things that are more generic in DS2. Dark Souls with its connectivity and focus to go through levels back and forth (and get to know them well) made it so unique. After playing each game once I could remember most of most DS1 areas, how they were constructed, and maybe 1 or 2 of DS2, the ones where I died the most...
He is so needlessly antagonistic and passive aggressive towards MatthewMatosis' critique. He has this weird problem where he can't just argue a point. He has to affect this smug attitude to make himself feel like his position is just so clearly superior. Usually, in this video, it's clearly for the sake of humor ("This is treason, and I'll see you in hell"), but other times he's just being an ass. ("Matthew simply didn't like Dark Souls II as much because he failed to learn what the game was trying to teach him"). You can love Dark Souls II, but stop pretending people are simply dummies because they didn't.
Finding DS1 interconnectedness more impressive doesn't do anything to counter his point. He even said he loved the interconnectedness too, he found it really cool. What he did say was that that having to design areas such that they can be traversed both ways limits what you can do with the area in certain ways, which is just objectively true. This doesn't mean it's bad or unimpressive, it just means he thinks it could've had more interesting design and enemy placement if they didn't have to account for players having to go back the same way.
@@realmarsastro But that would make it have less interesting design since it would be more generic. If it lost that interconnectedness it wouldn't be as unique and we wouldn't be talking about the areas almost 10 years later.
A critique on your critique around the 41 minute mark: It could easily be argued that anyone that was able to make their way through the first Dark Souls would have an advantage in trying to make it through Dark Souls 2. Your friend not asking questions on how to get through the game is possibly attributed to their growth as a player, not the level design of Dark Souls 2.
There was also a fully established community and forums where he could seek out help or get straightforward answers when DS2 came out. DS1 had none of that safe for a few Demons Souls enthusiasts but that was really only a spec compared to what came into existence after DS1.
Is nobody going to cover how easy DS2 was or how linear it is? Sure, you get to choose WHICH linear path you get to go down, but there's little branching off at all. Sure, linearity isn't all that bad but it makes things easy. Piss easy. With 4 areas just HANGING AROUND at the beginning of DS2, none of them were really allowed to bring up the difficulty. Maybe Freja's area (can't remember the name since the atmosphere is so pitifully unremarkable) turns up the damage numbers on the spider hollows but if you even get hit by one of them, I consider you bad. Seriously, they move at like 2km/h. Just like, go around them and get to the boss. Boss souls are the only ones that matter in the long run anyways. Trash mobs give like 500 souls max in NG so thankfully, grinding is pretty ineffectual compared to actually playing the game. Since most, if not all, of the mobs are these painfully slow enemies that always group up in threes or fours, it's a lot easier to just run past em. They can't catch up to you because if three or four FAST monsters constantly attacked you, then the game would be seen as unfair. Not only all this, but with SO MANY HUMAN ENEMIES, telegraphing on enemy attacks is ridiculously, hilariously, pitifully, saddeningly, punishingly.... easy to read. Enemy raises arm? Stop holding forward on control stick. Now hold left until you're close to behind them. Press R1. There, you just beat all but like 2 bosses in this entire game. Off the top of my head, those two would the Throne Watcher/Defender and Freja. Everyone else in the entire game can be beaten by backstab fishing. Since they're so fixed on homing in on you via rotating and not... idk... having AOE attacks or moving, or being well programmed, you can easily get at least 2 big attacks in before the enemy has full spun around. Took me about an afternoon to beat DS2 after I figured out how vulnerable everything is in this game to backstabs compared to 1. At least they put up a shield or had an animation to back away from you. Dark Souls 2 is so easy and sloppy, it can't even prevent me from cheesing it through 8 hours of backstabs. Not that I needed to. About 15 minutes in DS1 can prepare you for #2. Imagine what 150 hours got me
Everytime I watch that bit after actually going away and playing the game, I like to think that its because his friend gave up on the game because of how unintuative the progression is, how broken the healing is, how stiff and glitchy the fighting it and how there are areas filled with ganks despite his lies in this video.
@@ArtyoumPlays I know it's been 3 years, but I felt the need to make this reply. if you really try to give DS2 a chance to be enjoyed, you will enjoy it. That I can guarantee. Speaking as someone who played and loved DS1 and DS3 long before DS2, I can still honestly say I enjoyed experiencing DS2 the most of the trio. I never found the game easier or more linear than any of the others. To respond to your first paragraph, the game isn't linear. Objectively speaking it isn't. It grants so many different paths and ways to reach the castle in the first section that has already been brought up in the video. Each path is close enough to the same difficulty that while each person will typically take certain paths first, it could be challenged in any order and still feel legitimate. When I first played, I remember walking into the room with the petrified pyromancer on the switch and found that so interesting. I found it interesting enough that I searched up how to free her and got a fragrant branch from the merchant in the forest. Freja ended up being the first old one's soul that I got in my first ever playthrough of the game, and it's become my habit to go that way because I got used to that path. Every time I tried to explore and enjoy the world in the first game, I was punished for it. Not only was I was punished, I got through it after a long time, and then reached a massive wall that told me what I did was wrong. It told me that what I did lacked value. The first game didn't permit me to enjoy the game outside of a set path and even if that path looped around and intersected itself, it didn't feel nonlinear. The first game felt, to me, interconnected but bland. It was a game that forced me to go in circles getting keys and ringing bells to go to new branches of the world, and it was tedious. I didn't feel that in DS2. Don't misunderstand me, I loved my time playing DS1, but the way DS2 was made brought more enjoyment to me. It made me feel more important as a player than DS1 ever did, and that's why I enjoyed it more than the other games. For your next point about enemies being too easy to cheese, I'd say that's your fault. I got the black knight halberd on my first run of DS1 and I didn't enjoy most of the bosses as a result. I used an OP weapon, and I got severely disappointed when I finally reached Ornstien and Smough. My build killed them in 10-12 hits total and I had a moment after the fight when I thought "really? This fight is what was leading up to getting this magic relic that lets me literally teleport? DS1 is, to a degree, easier to trivialize even if not every method is through backstabs. Maybe it's because of the mindset I adopted when I began playing, but I don't think I backstabbed very much at all when I played. Every fight was a different method of exploring how fights could be done. DS1 lacked that. Encounters in DS1 could always be calculated down into a different type of block, dodge, hit, repeat. By the time that becomes even remotely viable in DS2, it feels foreign to you because you were taught to take more risks and do more with what you had. If you didn't enjoy DS2 because you thought it was too easy through backstabs, then maybe you should have done something else. In my later runs that didn't have the black knight halberd, I learned why everyone else seemed to love the O and S fight in DS1. I changed the way I played that part, and my experience improved as a result. Playing a game in one unenjoyable way and ignoring the countless other, more fun methods you were given to choose from doesn't make the game a bad game. It makes you a bad player for not choosing the way that would have brought you more enjoyment. Games are made to be enjoyed. If you can't enjoy it no matter what you do, then maybe it's the fault of the developer, but if you dislike one method and never change from that method you know you dislike, you don't have the right to say the game is at fault. The game gave you every chance and incentive to change, but it was you who chose to rebuke it. All in all, you're allowed to have your opinion. I honestly believe what you say was your honest experience. The thing that I find disappointing with your comment is that you decided that your experience meant the game itself was bad when you didn't go in intending to find an enjoyable game. Maybe it's true that the way the game is made makes it unfun for you, but there's a good reason that DS2 is the Dark Souls game I return to when I find myself wanting to play the series again even if it was the third souls game I played. The reason no one is talking about those aspects of the game you find problematic is because other people adapted. Any game has flaws, and the player's job is to at least attempt to find a fun experience despite those flaws. That's what every player did with DS1, and that's what every player did with DS2. The only difference was the set of flaws people had to adapt to. The reason you maybe didn't enjoy the game as much and think it's far more poorly designed is because you didn't try to adapt to the newer set of flaws. You went into a new game and tried to play it like a previous game, and that's not possible even within franchises. Not trying to adapt to a new game is your fault, not the game's. You need to accept that and either move to a different game or try to enjoy the game in a new way. What you don't need to do is continue spending time disliking a game that you dislike. Find a way to enjoy it, or forget it. There's no need for something else.
@@timmothyjames7876 Kind of a lopsided argument there, isn't it? So it's the players fault if the game seems to actively downgrade it's mechanics and we don't like how it did that? Literally dumbing down AI to the point where it doesn't even have character left in it and not dumbing down our playstyle is our fault? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a little aggressive here, but what you just wrote is a literate slap to the face. By your logic, it's your fault for not looking deeply enough into the world that is DS1 and picking out the well thought out the narrative is entwined with item drops and NPC locations. Like discovering the Black Iron set and realizing the the fate of Black Iron Tarkus. Simple, concise, and tells a story with only a few points. I would argue that DS1 did a far better job of building a world than DS2 building pretty sky boxes and video game levels back from the 80s. Did you even care to stop and compare Dranglaic castle with Lordran? At least Lordran put a couple bedrooms in like an actual castle would. Also, at the beginning of DS2, you only really have 2 pathways open at the beginning, 3 if you get the cats ring. Otherwise, you'll need to follow the two paths until to find the items needed to unlock the rest of the paths.
I kind of feel like pointing out that I played through DS1 for the first time with a dex build on a friend's advice. I had little health and even less armor, so taking a hit was pretty devastating. However, I did carry a shield around. I had a light roll, lots of I-frames, but also constantly blocked. Because shields in dark souls can be incorporated in many kinds of builds, not just "hit-trade" builds like high-poise slow-roll builds. A light shield in DS1 means you have the ability to parry, a very cool and dynamic ability to use. And even a small shield blocked considerable amounts of damage, while dropping it to attack took no time at all. TL;DR: shields aren't that bad in DS1, and don't lock you in a passive playstyle. However, I can see how they insentivise you to play that way.
Went through the whole of dark souls 1 role-playing as a knight with a sword and shield and I gotta say using a shield to beat the game is totally viable apart from a few times where two handing and dodging is better.
I also played through with a light dex build. I think I ended the game with a vitality of, like, 16-18? basically all bosses could 2 shot me. My main shield was the grass crest because of the stamina buff and I spent most fights balancing keeping my shield up to give me time to think, dropping it to recover stamina and dodging to give an opening to attack. It's a fun gameplay loop, and I think it's closer to the intent behind the design of shields.
Thats why I've heard that deprived is the best starting class for new players, since you start with a weak shield, so it encourages you to not rely on it too much
The thing I think many players should learn is that they should nly heal during a punish opportunity, for example, the best time to heal during a fight against gael is after he does the leaping attack since that has a long recovery animation
Frankly you shouldnt have to heal at all if you never get hit unless your playing dks2 where you take damage for no reason at all. I'm looking at you smelter 0.0
@@limb-o7180 Never said you didnt know anything about the bosses. Just saying I dont think you should take damage for being close to an enemy. thats some bs
whenever i talk about games, movies etc. i always have to second guess my opinions because are they my own, or did i just hear them in a review at some point
@@marciamakesmusic How is it not true? If you agree with something, then it is your opinion that it is correct. It doesn't matter if you heard it from someone else, because it became your opinion, as well.
Honestly I didn't think Jester Thomas was all that hard. The dude has no poise so you can use a decently fast weapon to just cheese him if you want to, no pyromancy comes out fast enough to avoid stunlock. Power stancing with a straight sword in the left and a thrusting sword in the right and doing a basic L1+R1 combo annihilated him pretty efficiently for me
One thing that I absolutely hate about the npc encounters is that when I hit the enemy npc with my greatsword he does not budge at all and keeps hitting me like a little bitch with 4000hp and I even with 120 poise still get staggered. Using the slam of ultra greatswords and clubs & shit is for pussies.
You didn"t fight npcs in demon souls xd, that was truly a hell, specially the one in the poison swamp aginst a specter with a sword that ignore shields
Finally completed all Soulsborne games (minus Elden Ring). You def made me appreciate Dark Souls 2 a lot more. You're spot on about the whole knowing when to lock-on bit. However I strongly disagree with the criticism of Dark Souls 1 for having a feasible interconnected world. That feeling of going through a new section and seeing it lead back to somewhere familiar was amazing and encouraged exploration. I thought that was one of the strongest points.
@@scandalouspanda7489 Makes me wish that Dark Souls Remastered had taken more liberties, like making Blighttown a one-way trip, giving access to teleportation to all accessible bonfires from the start, and ofc actually turning Demon Ruins into a finished proper level.
Replaying the game, there was one major issue I had with 2. There were countless instances of invisible lines you crossed that scripted everyone in the room to gank you, and this included unreachable enemies in hidden spots that you couldnt flush out with a bow. These enemies often times would also sprint as fast as you did, and often had too much poise to be stunned. These fights were often just not fun, especially on repeated attempts.
"just kill the enemies on the way then" bit fucking hard when they aren't "on the way" but rather 50 fucking meters forwards with 1 or more walls between you until their sword is up your ass while you are trying to kill the 4 other dudes blocking your path to the boss.
@@beanieguitarguy4070 that and the fact that any build you can think of is viable with the right gear. And you can then rock the sickest outfit to boot. :)
Elden ring was my first souls game. After beating it I went back and played the others from the first one onto the second and I remember a comment I saw about elden ring from someone online who said if you can learn how to fight without the lock on always being on then you will be better at the game. And in DS 2 that advice really helped me out
playing without lock-on is fine for melee, but free-aiming spells rarely works out. seems like even when your camera is positioned completely straight ahead, the projectile always travels either way over your aim point, or directly to your feet. wish they had a crosshair-based aim for spells like they do for bows/crossbows.
47:50 You can get a riposte while twohanding a weapon. It's something people do a lot in pvp. You simply didn't twohand your weapon fast enough and the riposte window closed.
One boss does not speak for a wider trend though. It IS the worst area of the game, but luckily that's a DLC thing that's not even required. Izalith is an entire third of the Lordsoul quest (feels more like half) that you can only skip most of if you max out spider covenant and know the shortcut.
@@WeskAlber Nashandra is an 80 second walk. Longer than any in DS1. Velstadt is a 60 second walk. As long as the longest run in DS1. Lud & Zallen is about a 300 second run, and that's if you know which way to go as a very experienced player. That's about four times the longest boss run of DS1. Those three are just off the top of my head. See MauLer's response videos for some more examples, he lists about five DS2 boss runs that are longer than any of DS1. In other words, no the one boss doesn't speak for a wider trend. But the five bosses or so definitely do.
@@TheStraightestWhitest Capra is NOT a 60 second walk. There's no way. That trip always took like 2 mins at best. Izalith, no way that's 60 seconds either. Trip to the fire asylum demon too. Even the close bonfire to Quelagg... No way that's a single minute. The Kiln is also no way shorter than the trip to Nash. Walks in the series have always been pretty bad because they're meant to be full levels not walks. I think DS2 feels way better about it due to stupidly generous checkpointing for most of the game. Only a few places starve you where DS1 starving was a feature while DS2 most bosses have a bonfire what feels like super close. Maybe a lot of it is thanks to my skill level increasing in the years between DS1 and today, but I didn't get sick of the walks nearly as quickly as I did to Capra and Quelagg
Dear Hbomber, I genuinely got my feelings hurt, when you mentioned that the Adjudicator fight from Demon's Souls was "the most forgettable fight in the game"... It was my favorite boss... I hate you, please continue to make videos. Love, -Me
Agreed. Dirty Colossus was easily the lamest and least memorable fight in Demon's Souls. Adjudicator at least had a cool design and some interesting moves.
Guard Counters in Elden Ring was a really elegant way to encourage action with a shield that i used a great shield the whole game and it felt so much more kinetic than DS1 and ostensibly parries being a way to encourage action with a shield
Because you need to know what attacks are good to block counter, which you should not to avoid being punished, and which you should not try to block at all to conserve your stamina so that you can keep up the pressure.
@@mawichan exactly. I prefer ds1 by far but I don't care if others don't share my opinion and all of the games can co exist. If people stoped trying to say why their favorite is better than my favoriteI wouldn't feel so required to say why their favorite game is bad
@@finn488 I agree, who cares about another's opinion, for instance, I enjoyed ds1 the least, but I KNOW it is a better game than What I think it is. (Which is still a decent game)
After sinking at least 40 hours into every game(yet to finish 3 and 2) I can say that they are all equally good and share many issues as well the souls franchise is and should be known as a flawed masterpiece.
@@gecho5427 "they are all equally good" No, please stop, DS2 is objectivley worst game in the series. If you enjoy it that's fine just don't pretend that it's as well made as the rest of the series.
@@fernandofaria2872 I don't think so. I only got it on my second visit to the Asylum, after I talked to a friend how ridiculous it was that only Humanity could heal you, and he pointed the Estus Flask out. Had to google how to do that though
@@staudinga it is a glitch that happens if you miss some important stuff but I don´t think you can get them if you visit the asylum again, you just lose the estus forever
@@QwertyUiop-bs2zr Maybe I remember it wrong and I actually restarted my game from the beginning, but I'm pretty sure I got the Estus Flask on the second visit to the Asylum that playthrough.
@@simpletonapollo9723 tell me about it. You know, it had so many cool ideas, but got so lost because of how incompetant the team who made it was. It could have been great, but it was not good, and I feel really bad.
@@simpletonapollo9723 And yet I still go back to play it more than dark souls 1, despite it's numerous problems. There's just something very charming and fun about it that the first game doesn't hit for me
@@nozomashii821 Whether DS2 is good or bad is purely subjective and those who preach about how bad it was are either trolling or are trying to shove their opinions down people's throat's. I for one enjoyed DS3 the most purely because mechanically it was the most responsive and fun, whereas DS2 hit me with interesting areas, ideas, fun PvP and the best NG on them all. DS on the other hand, was the last game I played and frankly, aside from some feels, it did not feel all that fun or interesting. Perhaps it was because I played in a different order? I would rank BB - DS3 - DS2 - DS from best to worst. Am I wrong? No. Are others who say DS2 is the worst? No. It's all subjective and there is no point in arguement.
It's a little bit like the concept of "turns" in the fighting game genre (which iirc Miyazaki has confirmed were an influence on the Souls formula.) Of course it's not the same as an actual turnbased game where turns are enforced explicitly, but implicitly the concept is there; the point is that if you want to heal, you need to use a "turn" that you otherwise could have used to attack, reposition etc. It's not that you can't drink estus in combat, it's that to do so, you need to use time and space that you could have used offensively, and if your enemy manages to put you in a position where you're always needing to use your turns to heal, then you're on your way back to the bonfire. Anyway just throwing in my two cents, I think it's an interesting aspect of the game design.
@@blazaybla22 yea I agree, I recently started play DS2 for the first time and I thought I would have a bigger problem with the time to heal like most other people did but it turns out im doing just fine, fine enough to not really upgrade adp as much as I thought I would. Mostly cause of what you said, most bosses and enemies have an attack animation that you can dodge out of, once dodged, you have about two or 3 seconds of the enemy just standing/walking/looking/regaining stance and so on. I use that time to heal immediately after I dodge even if I'm still next to the enemy(doing this with some enemies can be risky) but it works most of the time.
I think it's just in comparison to 1 where you can absolutely quickdrink and tank a hit at the same time and come out ahead which is fun in its own way but it's nice to see the formula varied
@@Battleguild You still need discipline for DS3 healing, you know. You can move while estusing, but not much, and it still takes a long time considering the speed that DS3 enemies attack. If they added DS2 estus into DS3, that game would be a shitshow.
@@hybridpheonix6343probably more because hbomb can take a while between uploads and also he doesn't like shields in previous games, whereas Elden Ring caters to them in a number of ways.
The hidey knights getting up and going for you works even if scholar is your first taste of 2. They wait until you're just used to them not getting up before they start getting up. Scholar is the only way I ever played 2, And I loved it
Would it be fair to say the tight tracking in DS2 is bad as an aesthetic/telegraphing concern? Like, in the DS1 Capra Demon example, the tracking loosens as he winds up, but then he snaps to you using a believable animation shift with convincing inertia. When turtle knight in DS2 tracks you, his feet literally swivel in place as if he's standing on a spinning disc, the entire time he lifts his weapon over his head. I don't mind that I can't just "walk out of the way" of attacks anymore, but, for example, if the knight continued to face his torso in the wrong direction, but turned his head towards me and one-hand dropped the club on me, I wouldn't feel nearly as incredulous about it. A lot of the large beasts in Bloodborne do exactly this, and I think the Dancer of the Boreal Valley fight in DS3 is a spectacular example of what I'm talking about--her tracking is insane, but her movements are always believable.
not to mention the pursuer who's curse attack that turns you hollow even if you dodge will sometimes just teleport you on to the attack even if your character is no where near the tip of the blade, or how the hippo ogres sometimes still grab you after what feels like a proper dodge.
I played the first dark souls purely by dodging and attacking, i never parried or used shields so it was bizarre to see him talk about rolling in dark souls 2 when it feels like that was actually gutted compared to the first game since unless you get a certain amount of agility your block feels as slow, clunky, and as useless as it does in the first game with really heavy armor. He also talked about how shields are garbage and my first thought was "i felt like i needed a shield in dark souls 2" due to the way rolling felt. Granted i eventually built enough agility to feel a difference but even then it sometimes still feels clunky and some attacks hit you when they feel like they shouldnt.
@@is0lated I felt the same way tbh. I just played DS1 and followed immediately into DS2 and man the physical mechanics, hitboxes, and hurtboxes made the game feel incredibly clunky at times. My biggest problem with parts of this video are that he tends to just make things overly biased with what he thinks are "good game design". He seems to value novelty or a differing uniqueness for something that equates to inherent value. Like...World design is so jacked up in DS2 and doesnt make sense, yet he tries to argue that that should just be overlooked because it's...chaotic and cool? Like, why tf should that argument hold real weight? Sure, the individual worlds are cool in asthetics, but the world as a whole just doesn't make sense or feel real, whereas DS1 felt tangible and grounded. Why should that be scoffed at for a point of better game design?
@@Azureflame20 yeah it's a weird argument to make, i mean if you like it... Cool! That's great! However he continuously tries to bring down the first game because it doesn't fit with this weird and arbitrary standard. If the whole video was like "oh yeah I think dark souls 2 is cool" instead of "here's why YOU should like ds2" i'd honestly have no problem.
@@Azureflame20 I agree on the world design being confusing, but It DOES fit in the style, The world is literally collapsing, and the devs had that in mind because, that must be HARD to program two places in one place yet only one takes effect. However the hitbox issues are annoying in general, but good specifically. You can sometimes hit the ground instead of damaging your opponent (while still hitting your opponent,) But you can learn enough about your opponent to make them miss attacks without you dodging. (Easiest the Old Knights in Heide's Tower of Flame.)
"These fights are what the soulds games are vessels for." I beat every single of the DS2 humanoid bosses by circle-strafing toward the shield side and whacking 'em on the butt. The problem isn't the monotony of designs, but rather that all the battle designs in DS2 are poorly executed. There is also no precedent for saying that this is the "ideal" Dark Souls fight. If DeS is to be seen as the prototype of the Souls games, then this is the exact opposite of the ideal, since the typical fight in DeS was against larger than life monsters. And that is honestly what I prefer to see in a Souls game. I want to battle horrendously large ancient demons for the most part. I mean, not saying you are wrong for preferring this, but it seems you are stretching "I prefer this" into "this is what the games are all about."
I won't say I never had to dodge or block, but once I figured out this strategy in the Pursuer fight and noticed that an abundant amount of attacks of the boss just hit empty air and the few attacks that had a chance of hitting me were heavily telegraphed or just not very disruptive, I tried the same tactic on any other boss that was a humanoid and found that it trivialized a lot of battles. When I entered the looking glass knight's boss room, I went in thinking "oh, this guy will be a pushover." And I was right! I was disappointed because one-on-one batttles against humanoid enemies in DS1 were really intense and my heart rate goes up still when I replay those battles.
SlimeQueenSupreme .There is no logical reason your strategy wouldn't work on non-human enemies either. Especially considering their attacks are even more telegraphed.
Non-human enemies tend to have claws which do not favor a dominant side, they are usually larger and therefore more difficult to get around, and they often have tails or hind claws to cover their backs. That does not necessarily mean that humanoid enemies can't have ways of dealing with this strategy, but there are some elements in their design that lend themselves more to having this strategy work of designers don't take this approach into account. This strategy just worked less welll against non-human enemies in DS2, and I usually had to do at least some work figuring out the best position to attack from while still being able to dodge attacks.
The section where you talk about monster hunter's lack of lock in is really funny because it does have one. It just is, as you put it, used sparingly. It doesn't just put your camera on the target, it just makes it so when you press the "center camera" button it goes to the monster without tracking it. Really useful designed such that you're encouraged to use the camera as well.
Have you played older monster hunters? I’ve only played rise but I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression it was a somewhat new thing in the series, that’s what someone said
@@sams7068 I've been playing since 3 Ultimate which I think came out over ten years ago. That game also had the same lock on feature if I'm not mistaken. I think in those games how you pick which monster you're targeting is a little different (instead of using L3 you use the 3DS touch screen). I don't think those games would be playable without the lock on since the 3DS doesn't have a second stick to control the camera.
Its ben sence i was a kid but I belive mh1 had it to lock on then hit a button to recenter on the monster I could be wrong thou my memory is a little hazie I do remeber you attacked with the right analog stick
@@Spark31Gaming Its funny, because 3 Ultimate is the game that introduced the lock-on feature. Before that they didn't have lock-on, only having the ability to recenter your camera towards where you're facing. Before this the psp game had camera controls on the D-pad, which was god awful, but useable. I can't remember the PS2 games, but i think it was the same, with the right stick swinging your weapon, and not moving the camera, that being left to one of the shoulder buttons recentering the camera. Didn't always have a lock-on, and it was a big adjustment for me.
Yes, but hbomb specifically said that you can't riposte if you're 2-handing which is just plain wrong. Also I like how hbomb praised DS2 for it's parrying system while bashing DS1 but forgot to mention that parrying in DS2 is so inconsistent that even the most hardcore players have trouble parrying even the most basic enemies. Just look at the parry window in DS2, it's not only slow with a short wind-up time and a LONG recovery time after the parry window but it also dramatically changes from shield to shield - how are you supposed to learn the parry timings at all when they are so inconsistent? That's like trying to learn trying to learn how to dodge attacks by rolling but every once in a while your roll gets a different amount of s and moves them around... OH WAIT DS2 DOES THAT TOO Here's a graph of the parry windows: darksouls2.wiki.fextralife.com/file/Dark-Souls-2/ParryWindowDKS2.png Dark souls parries are instant (in fact they are very similar to Bloodborne, except there there's a short bullet travel time, but from a close range these parries are also instant), they have no wind-up at all, you start with 6-8 active frames followed by 16-20 frames of recovery. But since there's no variable wind-up time before the active frames you can parry really consistently with any shield.
+Patryk567 Oh man after reading the words "monastery scimitar" in that link I just got a wave of pvp disgust. dual avelyn, santiers spear, mundane infusement, full havels, WotG, Soul memory, monastery scim backstep parries, waiting for your opponent to finish casting their fifth fucking buff every time a new duel starts. That was literally the most unfun i've ever had with a souls game's pvp even including DS1 where the connection was actual garbage and you had to play around it.
I'm 15 minutes into the video, enjoying it so far, had a small comment: I don't think people's issue with Dark Souls 2 was ever ACTUALLY about dudes in armor. Dark Souls 3 has more dudes in armor than DS2 and no one ever complains about that. I think it's more that the fights, although decent individually, have very similar mechanics and don't require you to actually learn new strategies for new bosses. Champion Gundyr and Dragonslayer Armor are like night and day, but if i hadn't played through DS2 as many times as I have I doubt I'd know the difference between Velstadt, the Pursuer, and Dragonrider.
At 30 minutes now. The Gutter, for as much hate as it gets, is the best-designed area in Dark Souls 2 by far and better than any area in Dark Souls 1 save Undead Burg and the Painted World. It's my favorite part of the game and I wish the rest of it had been held to the same standard of quality but I understand the game had a lot of development problems.
54 minutes now. It's true Vendrick has gone hollow but that's no different from the story of Dark Souls 1, the difference is that Dark Souls 1 was more subtle. Throughout the game you're hearing stories of the might Gwyn, Lord of Sunlight, but you finally meet him and he's a crazed hollow, unable to even speak to you: no longer the Lord of Sunlight, but the Lord of Cinder. You've been manipulated into going to kill him by Frampt and Gwyndolin and Velka, who want to extend the Age of Fire to keep their power. Ultimately, you burn yourself alive in the Kiln, not even realizing the fate that has befallen you. I don't think this story criticism you're making is fair.
Totally agree. I quite enjoy bosses like Vorrken from W101 or Black Knight from Shovel Knight. They're literally the same, your rivals, and appear multiple times. But the big difference is that they change, and pretty much no boss in DS2 felt unique to me. Either they're dudes in armor with samey combos, have a bunch of smaller enemies/helpers for some reason, or plain repeats.
Both Gwyn and Vendrick went Hollow, but that carries different weight when the entire story of the game is about you going Hollow. In DS1, Gwyn went Hollow, and that was just a vaguely-tragic Thing That Happened. In DS2, Vendrick went Hollow, and given that the entire game is about going Hollow and losing your memories, and how little everything matters because everything is going to repeat, it ends up meaning a whole lot more. DS1 makes Gwyn going Hollow tragic because he was Great (not as in good, but just in terms of having a large effect on the world) and this is him being brought low. Vendrick going Hollow is (imo) much more tragic because it reflects the sorry state of the world- he was the closest to great there was at his time, but he was really just re-treading well-traveled ground and ultimately he, and Drangleic, and the player, means absolutely nothing.
i think his take on lifegems is kinda strange. there are plenty of bossfights that you can use lifegems as your main heal for due to how quickly you move whilst using them, that speed allowing you to dodge attacks to make a healing window
@@rat9041 i was not complaining At all, saying gems > estus is Just right, but the way u Said that was like insinuation that gems are actually the best way of healing ever. I play since day 1 vanilla preorder Edition, i dont have to use any healing At all.
I think estus is better if you know how to use it. The only bossfight I used lifegems as my main source of healing was Dukes Dear Freja, and I only did that because I spent all my estus in Brightstone Cove Tseldora. They are good but they require you to not get hit after using them because they heal so slow. Estus is much faster and not too hard to use when you are only fighting 1 enemy.
I'm really surprised he didn't go more into the stances, which opened the door for customizing your build and how you want to fight. You can dual wield the iron greatsword. Dual wield. The mighty chungus. And it's an actual move set, not just swinging one then following up with the other.
@@kingdddinner2627 This, and he also does this by building faulted strawman arguments. "You listen to a random knight's stupid family story, ring 2 bells, listen to 2 serpents say king good or king bad and then open a big door". They all tell you to meet the king. Just like in DS2. And just like in DS2, the king is now decrepit and hollow. Nothing revolutionary, just sadder in DS2 (which is a great thing). But the story isn't more dynamic than DS1's. The world is already dead in DS2 all the same, the only two living pieces of the chess game are Nashandra and the Emerald Herald. Also, "oh DS2 encourages rolling while DS1 doesn't". What the fuck is he talking about? Nothing tells you agility is the way to have more roll I-Frames, so you don't roll at the start because of how awful rolling is. Also, if you don't want to just be a sack of fragile shit for 3 bosses while investing into Adaptability, you'll have to be forced not to dodge for a while through the game. Bruh. If that doesn't make players shy away from rolling Idk what does.
@@ambralemon The standard roll is good enough, I don't know why people complain about ADP when it isn't even necessary. I don't remember how many points I put into it, but considering I was focusing on just increasing my attack power as much as I could, it couldn't have been a lot. Dual caestus, so I couldn't block any attacks. Try a fisting build. It's quite fun :)
@@tonyramirez5707 I've never understood why people put so much worth in ADP, I've never put any points into it in any of my builds, can you explain it for me?
Monster hunter does have a lock on, it only ever allows you to lock on to big monsters and rather than sticking your camera to them perfectly it sets them as your camera reset position instead of right in front of you. That way you can quickly refocus but still able to maneuver the battlefield
The interconnectivity of DS1 makes it stand out to me imo, how it masterfully connects later levels to previous ones in creative, surprising ways makes it way more memorable and exciting. How there is no obvious path and how you continue to figure out how everything connects as you progress. I feel like this is lessened in the later souls games.. the mechanics/ bosses may be better but you lose a little magic when it is reduced/ streamlined to a less imaginative, more predictable level design of unlock elevator, go to bonfire, repeat.. As for the Abstract poetic significance, for me. the feelings you get when you enter the game and see the word 'undead asylum' pop out across the screen, meeting the dying knight with the soft cryptic voice, the pale column of light shining down on him in such a desolate place and you have no idea why you are here or how you ended up on a dead prison on the top of a mountain really strikes you in a way DS2 doesn't really live up to imo..
The problem with DS1's inter-connectivity is that it leads to a lot of backtracking and going through the same old areas again before you can warp. The payoff of looping back to where you just were and whatnot is cool, but considering the cost of that is a lot of tedious retreading of old ground I think it's more or less a wash. The ability to go to X Y and Z places in whatever order is similarly kinda cool but ultimately most people will just go the "intended" path or a slightly different one that skips some optional stuff on the vast majority of their runs. HOWEVER, the somewhat recently released Daughters of Ash mod builds on the inter-connectivity and actually makes the game legitimately non-linear so you can go through it a number of different ways, with parts of the game actually changing based on what you go do first, making the choice of paths actually meaningful for once. It's also hard as nails so it'll challenge even seasoned Souls veterans. Highly recommended for anyone who's a major fan of the series, and the first game in particular, because it takes the interesting things about the first game to the extreme.
The inter-connectivity in Dark Souls is one of my favorite things about it and very impressive level design. It's like an open world game but more vertical than being long flat plains.
Alright, well we can talk about whether a directed or interconnected path is better or not, but if you are really worried about having an interconnected path just play Dark Souls 3. Not only does it do the directed path thing better than Dark Souls 2, but you will never have to worry your little head about not being able to warp ever again, as the game has a plethora of bonfires and even gives you an infinite homeward bone after you beat it. There you go, problem solved. I mean Dark Souls 2 is a fine game, but saying it is better than the other Soulsborne titles or that someone should start off with it as their first is a bit of a stretch.
Linda Niemkiewicz I didn’t mean Dark Souls 3 was interconnected, I was saying if you are worried about your game being interconnected then play Dark Souls 3, as in You won’t have to because Dark Souls 3 really isn’t interconnected. I was saying that Dark Souls 3 does the directed path approach better than Dark Souls 2 because you can actually tell where you came from and where you are going, giving the world some scale as opposed to being connected through world spanning elevators and caves.
The metroidvania-like design of the world made Dark Souls feel truly unique among other games of the time. It's rare to see a 3D game with such a concise and intricately overlapping world like the one Dark Souls 1 has. Being able to look down and see parts of the world you've weaved through is such a cool feeling and makes the exploration more satisfying. The common "backtracking" complaint was never an issue for me because going through old areas again meant more souls for levels and upgrades.
@@RAFMnBgaming By proving he A.) doesn't know his own game, and B.) tearing it down despite being an objectively better game... Dark Souls 1 was put a pedestal for a reason... Meanwhile Dark Souls 2 was mostly forgotten amongst the games for a reason as well.
@@lucebelmont You're missing what i'm saying. Just because DS1 is a great game, doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws that he thinks DS2 addresses in a satisfying way. That's the point here.
Im just going to add my 2 cents here. DS 1, 2 and 3 are all very different from each other. They each tell a different story that is linked by the first flame. The first flame is the only thing that links all 3 games. DS 1 you are fighting in the ruined realm of literal gods as for the fire is dying for the second time. There are monsters like the gaping dragon that the gods didnt slay before The Fading, which is why you encounter them in DS 1. Plus since its only the 2nd time its fading (first being when Gwyn linked it and screwed humanity into this cycle) there aren't several kingdoms that have fallen to be put into one place. DS straight up say that when the fire fades all land are brought to one place which is why DS 1 is so interconnected Because its only 1 kingdom. DS 2 you are in a world that might have had hundreds of kingdoms rise and fall, so if they are all brought to one place of course the layout wouldnt make sense as each kingdom would be thrown and twisted with all the others. As for the men in armor Bosses, if hundreds of kingdoms have come and gone then more than likely most (Like 90%) of all beasts and monster have been hunted and killed by now leaving only man with only a few of the smartest or most dangerous beasts left. Then DS 3 straight up acknowledges this with the first 2 boss. iudex gundyr is a dude in armor that transforms into a monstrous thing that was once a man, while Vordt was obviously once a knight of the Boreal Valley but has been reduced to more beast than man, which is why he howls and walks on all fours. Where DS 1 was interconnected and DS 2 was a mind trip, DS 3 in more like Zelda in the way that its a dungeon crawl. You work your way through a level and find 1 or 2 ways to go and more than likely you will finish one dungeon before moving onto the next. And i think DS 3 has the biggest acknowledgment of DS 2 at the end. When you are transported to the Kiln of the First Flame, that twist mass of building that couldn't possibly be in one place. That is how DS 2's map should be looked at. As for gameplay, each one plays so different of the others. You can't take the same strat from DS 1 and play that way through DS 2 and 3 or BB for that matter and get the same results and it works that way for each game. If i wanted that i'd just play every CoD game thats come out in the last 10 years. We should look at the differences and be grateful that they are all so different instead of complaining that its not the same. Each SoulsBourne game feels and is worth the money because you aren't just getting DS 1 over and over and over again. Instead we get 3 different, beautiful and glorious games that have given us deep, dark worlds to explore, a community of people that came together to piece the stories together and a higher expectation from game companies to put in even a fraction of the effort that was put into these game. So to finish off I love each and everyone of these games and the community it has built, its just heartbreaking to see so many people hate on something just because it was different. Do we really want to keep linking the fire and just having the same thing happen, or do we let the fire fade and usher in something new?
@@KGLordofhollows you know that every dark souls is a different timeline? So you could have just not write that comment sorry to say and dark souls 2 never tried to tell us the story of the first flame the curse is much more the thing the question, is the curse rly that bad is the circle rly worth it, you get this y the ringed city dlc from dark souls 3 asks the same question is the dark/curse rly that bad? Also your Ästhetik Statements about dark souls 2 I see you don't know the lore about the game so pls be quiet about it, the horse is there to trample the cursed over and over again, the purseurer is there to hunt the undead/cursed so it makes sense that he pops up (he should pop up more often but I guess that's by design), the Dragonrider are the elite fighters of the King I don't get that point. You see you mistook something as well, maybe I'll find more. Calling it bad world design? That is a hard question some say yes some say no, just bcs you don't get the point it's not the world's designs fault, don't come with it to find the story is the design of all souls games if you blame that pls blame all dark souls than.
@@KGLordofhollows explain me, how is it possible that we only get one soul from ornstein and smough? Why does ornsteins amor lies at the dragon peak when he is dead? or did you forget about? the world in ds2 makes sense, there are much more "mistakes" in DS1 and 3, if it is only one timeline how did irithyl get under anor londo? much things make no sense in all games. Also the point with seeing things you can see things in DS2 not as much as in the other two games but that doesn't make a bad world building. That things are out of place? that is not so easy to say mate, you think that it is I think it is not, ony the creator of the world can truly say and I'm sure they did not say about it. The dragon rider are there to protect key positions, the throne room again to hold of nashandra sitting there right next so that she can't easily procced, the one in heide tower, well I have no good answer for that one and the last one you found the answer already, the horse in the castle? you realise that it could also be used as a guard? The purseurer is not hostile gainst the others because of their clothing carrying the symbol of drangleic and he regognises it, or maybe is also cursed ever considered that? and he just wants to hunt ya down for his own good? I am sure you will call all of this nonsense bcs you are alr in the state of not trying to give it a go. If dark souls 1 would be hated that much and dark souls 2 would be praised that much you would pretty much do the same with dark souls 1 you wouldn't give it a chance and yes the story is about the curse the four great souls must be there for the cycle, but as I said the question is "why do we continue the cycle for what cause?", so they must be there ofc, also when we sit on the throne do we link the flame or do we let the flame fade? you can't say that in this ending bcs the end is only the emerald herald saying "what the future brings only you know...", credits role, the other end is also no choice we make in the other games, we try to find a different way, bcs we admit that the cycle is not good and that our journey is almost useless bcs another one will come and finish what we started, dark souls 2 is almost teaching you that it is almost hopeless to escape the cycle, that humanity is trapped uppon gwyns curse (you heared right gwyns curse). Those endings are much more interesting than all other but that is subjective as the world design. Also I find it kinda shitty that in the ringed city we just meet another of gwyns children, idc what you think but that is lazy design popping another child of gwyn out of nowhere.
Completely unrelated to the video but I absolutely love how, at 47:56, you can practically see the excitement Hbomb has at getting lucky enough to roll a black knight sword as he immediately goes to equip it
I agree with the appeal of “honorable duel” type fights, but I disagree that they are inherently better than fights with larger, stronger enemies. One of the big appeals of ds1 was the scale of these bosses. The scale combined with difficulty gave the feeling of you, playing as a small, undead warrior, fighting your way through gods, dragons, and demons against all odds. Personally, I found this concept as one of the things that made me want to play the games. I think both styles of boss have their place.
I was not particularly good at analysing the media I consume at the time I played DkS2, but despite that, it struck me then how many ways the game outright tells you that it can't be DkS1. So many item descriptions for example make reference to trying to recapture the glory of a bygone age, or just being a pale imitation of the original. How did people not see that
That point is all well and good, but falls somewhat flat in hindsight. While for the purposes of a video essay breaking down the story elements and themes, that's fine. But when playing the game it just feels way worse to actually do anything in 2 than 1. So the reaction to those item descriptions just make it feel like they made a worse game on purpose. Especially considering that DS3 pretty well recaptured how DS1 felt to play. (Obviously it's much faster than 1 but the feel is much closer)
Рік тому+42
@@gordonslamsay8074 nah. I enjoyed the game on its own merits, noticed these aspects while I was playing, and thought, "Hah, neat that they're drawing attention to how this game is, and has to be, different."
@ fair enough, to each their own and all that. Personally though, with the critical mass of design choices that just feel worse to me and the fact that 2 is very much the odd one out in terms of game feel, I'm less inclined to enjoy those nods.
I mean, maybe he had no video recorded with friends on his oc and he rushed an entire run recording it for the video? Some ppl think utubers are Magic creature able to do everything in this world :). Srsly Your comment is a bit dumb :'D And also, whats wrong with npc lol
Dark Souls II lets me play a character who's left handed by using the Falchion and that makes me happy. I saw I could use it in my let hand for normal swing, said that she was predominantly left handed, and she went through with a sword in the left hand, a staff in the right, and enough Soul Arrows to make a LMG feel insecure about it's magazine size.
Yes he makes fair points but it bothers me how he can critique the run up to artorias as being hard and long and that’s bad. But at around 42 mins he is talking about shrine of Armana and how the long and hard run up is fine because it’s late in the game and the game is supposed to be hard. It’s the same point but used differently for the two
Yea there are a ton of inconsistencies in this. According to him healing items in Demon Souls were making the game worse but then described the same system as 'genius' in DS2. He should just say he prefers DS2 because instead of trying to argue that all other Dark Souls games are actually bad and "you're playing the game wrong". It's kind of like trying to argue "The Han Solo movie was objectivly the best Star Wars movie because it didn't have any Jedi in it".
I think Amana's is actually different, there are only 3 enemies who spot you if you just run straight to the elevator for the Artorias fight, and you don't need to kill them. Doesn't change how Lud and Zallen has such a long runback, and he just ignored it entirely.
4:17 - "A lot of early players die while mashing the heal button. That's not fun." This argument confuses me. Of course a lot of new players die while mashing the heal button, they also die while mashing the dodge and attack buttons. A lot of new players die walking off cliffs. Is any of it fun? No, of course not, dying isn't fun. Dying was never meant to be fun. Dying is meant to teach you a lesson, in this case that you tried to heal when you didn't have the space for it. Healing in souls games has always been about picking your moment very carefully, being rewarded for picking the right moment and getting punished when you didn't.
Bearing in mind I haven't played a souls game so I have no idea if this is the actual experience of it or not, but I think the point Hbomb is making here is that there are fun ways to die or lose, and that's more emotional than logical. If you lose because you didn't dodge correctly or you attacked at the wrong time, that might feel like a satisfying way to lose, you made a mistake, one you can get better at and learn from. Logically yes the same applies to healing, but I can see it being the case that emotionally it's just not a fun way to die, it feels more like you being bad, rather than the enemy being better than you. To take an example I am familiar with, in a game of Warhammer 40k, if I lose because I played the best I could, made a few mistakes and lost because they were just better than me, that's a fun way to lose. If I lost because my dice kept rolling 1's every time I try to cast a psychic power, that feels like a bad way to lose which isn't fun. It's not exactly the same situation, but I just wanted to illustrate the point that not all ways to lose are equal, and good game design can involve minimising players losing in ways that aren't fun, while allowing them to lose in ways that are.
@@alexrandell5559 the issue with that comparison is that one of those is on you as a player, and the other is just RNG. Dying while healing is on you as a player. It's not RNG based. Making mistakes and being smacked for it is a perfectly reasonable thing. And it serves to reinforce that you as a player need to improve.
@alexrandell5559 "I have absolutely no bloody idea what I'm talking about but let me give you a long winded explanation as to why I think you're wrong anyway"
I would love to see an update or retrospective from Hbomb on this game. Be interesting to see what a fresh take from him would be considering how much better his video game analysis has gotten in the last 5 years.
what are you talking about? how the hell can you know the first time if the illusionary door was there? plus there is a bonfire in the entrance of the demon... place (wow cant believe i forgot the name) so you wont start looking for secrets in that room.
+BloodyDIMISIS55 lol the only reason i realised that that was an illusory wall was that i felt the level was missing something and the texture was a bit repetitive on that exact wall soooo hit it and booom bonfire.
15 minutes in, listening to hbombs arguments about healing items and fighting enemies on the same footing as you, and I wonder how much he must have loved Sekiro
Selvin Fernandez I wish I could have enjoyed Sekiro. It’s the only souls game I walked away from, wasn’t difficulty, but the lack of visual feed back, I got mental health issues, numbers, math, all that stuff tickles my brain, and when I hit someone and see numbers it assures me that I’ve done something. Sekiro lacked that feedback, so I felt lost the whole game, I made it to the owl before I just set the game down and gave up. It was to stressing to lack that feed back, gave me anxiety.
@@arutemisemtrai9769 There might be a mod for that. I learned the feedback as the big sparkling cloud that shows up when you deflect, and the higher pitch sound it made. But I must have played through twice before I actually started to get a hang on the system. Slow learner I guess
@@arutemisemtrai9769 dude for me what was really grinding my nutsack into a fine powder was saint isshin and shinobi owl. Fuck those two bosses, only time I've ever had to cheese a boss ever
@@steltzsm Owl was rough but the issue again was just a lack of fun. Games like Dark souls, Bloodborne, and now the Nioh series have a spot in my brain that just works, learning the patterns and stuff is easy, but the numerical feed back and number crunching was the fun bit for me. Investing time and thought and seeing a return was the biggest part for me, striking an enemy and going from 128 on a backstab and like 256 on a reposte to dealing over 1,000 damage later on, the visual section of it showed me progress. And not just that, but finding ways to legitimately early game break stuff, min/maxing I think the term is. That also really contributed to my fun factor. Sekiro gutted all that, to me its just 3-D castlevania, yeah I can fight the bosses, and base enemies, but without that exact feedback, I find myself needing to take mental breaks from the game. It wasn't worth the stress.
Man, you really should have talked about ADP. My first playthrough I knew nothing about it and had a terrible time, but my second time I did and took advantage of the stat. For all the talk you do about how a game teaches you, it's conspicuous that you don't mention this flaw in the design of the game.
He tip tows over all the flaws of the games to make a shitty point and takes points from others out of content or cuts their points to make them seem worse to build himself up
@@kys1453 ADP, hitboxes, bad movement in Scholar, needless emphasis on difficulty resulting in it being unfair, some of the shittest bosses in the series, etc
The game apparently wants to teach you to fight without a shield and rely on dodging and rolling, but then gives you extremely low iFrames during rolls, unless you built up the Adaptability stat quite a lot, and then doesn't tell you that...
aliquidcow Yeah. This video is only opinion and then occasional out of context nitpicking of Matthew's video. I do have to agree though that the example with the 2 dragon riders is a bit pathetic on Matthew as you can just lower the music volume a bit and hear the bow reloading absolutely fine.
@@QuackerHead-j It always feels like a bad tactic to take one particular person's argument and pick it apart as if it shows that the viewpoint as a whole is wrong. Like Matthew may very well be making bad points about why DS2 sucks, but that doesn't mean that DS2 doesn't suck.
@@KingKongsFingers Then again he didn't know when he pulled off a succesful bunnyhop in Devil Daggers because the ocvious sound que and fov shift was apparently too hard to make out when the screen became cluttered.
To be fair, if you develop the ability to dodge with DS2 shitty starting i-frames, you'll be able to dodge damn well anything with the proper i-frames. During my first run through DS2, I didn't even know what Agility/Adaptability were and just thought that the dodge in DS2 was garbage by default, but I stuck with it and when I got to DS3 I was basically invincible.
@@darragholeary8653 imo in dark souls 1 specifically it was really fun plotting out my journeys and weighing out the pros and cons of setting out to get something. i.e. i got cursed in the depths, so do i spend 6000 souls getting the purging stone from the sewer lady, or make the risk of trekking all the way to the top of undead parish to get it from oswald in order to get it for half the price
I think the lock on actually works well for multiple enemies you cna flick between them to switch your view faster then click off to attack in a different direction
Yes! Exactly! Finally someone gets it! It’s not one or the other, it’s about skill and what you like to do. The “focus on one enemy” button can also be used to pick you targets of a horde that are more vulnerable. Like, if you’re being swamped by hollows, and one steps a bit more forward than the rest; you can focus on just them and pick them out of the pack.
I never criticized DS2 for its level design but I always liked the design of DS1 more. I loved the interconnectedness and the general aesthetic of it so much that I would often find myself walking between areas rather than warp all the time just so I could take it all in and enjoy it. I did this so much that when I replayed the game 5 or so years later, I could still remember how the areas connected and a lot of minor details about each area. I can see why people like the world of DS2 more but I was just so in love with the world of first game that it's still possibly my favorite game world I've had to traverse I only got to play DS2 once because my save corrupted almost immediately after beating the game (no joke it was the same day) cut I do plan on revisiting DS2 and the dlc I never got to play and give it another chance. I hope I come to love it as much as I love the other games in the series
Just playing through DS1 for the first time, and I find myself doing the same thing. It takes the cake for world/level design even when compared to the newer ones, and I played DS3 and BB first. I found myself running from firelink through undead burg to the bell tower, and down through the depths to blighttown, even after I had the shortcuts unlocked, just because those areas are so amazingly well designed. I heard about DS1's interconnectedness being a strong point, but had no idea how true that is, even after being impressed by Bloodborne. I like DS2 ok so far, but it doesn't come anywhere close to the level of effort put into DS1 in this regard.
27:30 there is literally another bonfire that isn't a secret right next to Quelaag's domain in the great swamp that you're ignoring to make your point. You never have to go through blighttown again to make runs at Quelaag once you find her the first time, because the great swamp bonfire is a 90 second run from her.
That bonfire are not warpable though makingnoises. For some reason dark souls 1 made it where you could only warp to specific bonfires once you gain access to the lordvessel. The closest remote bonfire location is the secret chaos covenant. (The next being the great hollow I think which is also a pretty elaborate secret) That catacombs also have this issue where you have to go pretty far into nito's domain before they finally give you a bonfire you can warp to.
It's also worth mentioning that the Daughter of Chaos bonfire was not a warp point at launch. That was changed in patch 1.06. Not so that you don't have to go back through blight town, but so Chaos covenant members would be able to warp to their covenant leader.
The9thMan99 but you can warp right to firelink. Once you've done blighttown once you never have to do it again.m, not even to make runs at quelaag and not even if you somehow left and came back. You just go straight from firelink to the bonfire by her via the elevator
You still technically have to go through blighttown again, but it's honestly a moot point basically because of what you described. Despite having to go through blighttown, it's not really a hassle to go through it using the shortcut. It would have been nicer if you could just warp to bonfire you want though but for whatever reason dark souls 1 doesn't do that.
CMH he makes a joke about how broken pvp is in dark souls during his bloodborne video. Then during this video he says pvp is fun in dark souls 2 because it’s fair, completely ignoring the fact that he himself said it was broken.
@Roxion 358 The problem of the game was the fact that it was pressed for time. They where going to do this whole thing with time travel and space warping wich would explain the elevator, the giant memories, and the dlc warps. As the game is though it just doesnt make sense. Sad because to me the game could have had the best story of the whole souls series
I've tried watching this video twice and I've always quit at 23:36 when hbomberguy accuses Matthewmatosis of incorrectly doging while showing Matthewmatosis correctly doging and still getting hit because he didn't level adaptability
"correctly dodging" is not dodging into the direction of the swing. Would he have rolled away from the boss or into the direction of the sword, he wouldn't have gotten hit. The pursuer is one of the few bosses that can be dodged with low agility. So not a good dodge, even with a bit more agility, this would have been a hit.
@@Thomas.c4647what you failed to realize is that this isn't a "bad dodge", it's an example to showcase the issue that Matt is pointing out can happen because for attacks like these, you have to be conscious of your ADP level and s. He is showcasing that you can get hit midroll, then provides an example of how you would get hit midroll, then you're complaining that he isn't dodging in a way to not get hit midroll.
It's always interesting to me what aspects of a mechanic a critic is willing to believe are intentional, or at least meaningful, and what aspects they dismiss as "just bad design." This is an extremely minor example, but you sort of shrug off the fact that in DS1 you can't summon your friends as the game "not working." And of course, part of that is just playing the character of hbomberguy, man who makes the funnies on the interwebs. But I find the fact that you're almost always summoning a stranger to be quite meaningful in DS1 -- it's fitting with the eerie, ethereal quality of the game, for one thing, and the single-player-but-not-quite, bizarre nature of the multiplayer aspects, where it's simultaneously quite lonely and quite social. Here's this person who you've never met before, who you can't talk to directly and can only communicate with through crude sign language, but who's playing this crucial role in your particular quest and who you're sharing this one-of-a-kind, individualized experience with facing this boss. When you beat DS boss with a summon, it becomes the legend of how you and this one guy conquered this incredible challenge, and you feel this unique kinship with someone who you don't know at all and will probably never meet again. Very fitting with the game's themes of personalized, human-level hope in the face of globalized, world-level oppression and despair. And of course, you're welcome not to find that meaningful. Art is subjective; that's the joy of criticism. But especially since a major thesis of this video is that people who complained about the multi-enemy encounters in DS2 just didn't understand what DS2 was going for, it's interesting to me the things that are dismissed as "just bad design" or "just better design," seemingly without warranting further explanation or proof, and which things deserve deconstruction and analysis. Obviously, you've only got so much time in this video that's already practically a treatise, and you naturally want to focus on the things that you particularly are interested in talking about. Totally fair and valid, that's how any sort of essay works, video or otherwise. It's just interesting to me that as video game criticism has evolved, and developed its own vocabulary and structures and theories and so on, there's more and more of an emphasis on digging deep into and dissecting the metaphor behind given mechanics, but it's simultaneously fine to just hand-wave certain things away as "the developers fucked this up." Who gets to pick what warrants deconstruction, and what warrants dismissal? I suppose in an ideal world everyone would have the time and attention for 43-hour-long videos about every solitary detail of a game, and we don't live in that ideal world. Again, fair enough. I just encourage all critics -- not just you, Hbomb, you're far from the worst offender here -- to think carefully and critically about what they hand-wave when they criticize others for hand-waving. Those who live in glass houses, yadda yadda yadda.
It doesn't really make sense in-universe, though. You can summon specific NPCs. It's very heavily implied that these NPCs are directing their summoning signs to your world, either because they just like helping people out in Solaire's case, or because they feel they have a debt to repay (most other NPCs). So it kindof breaks the universe's own rules that your friends can't do the same and specifically send their summon sign to your world.
I remember fighting Darkeater Midir and some player with no armor at all and a rapier completely owned Midir. He was literally the best summon I've ever had and I'll never see him again.
I don't know whether or right or not and I haven't played DS2 yet but I think this is the only remotely charitable critical comment I've seen on this video
Did you say it is impossible to riposte while 2-handing a weapon in DS1? Because that is incorrect. Other than that the video is oscillating between stating "get good" and "appreciate it for what it is", while ignoring valid criticisms like level/map/world design.
@@__asher__So you're online insulting people who have played the game when you yourself haven't.... People tell you it's a bad game with fundamentally worse mechanics so you take it as an endorsement to purchase the game. Alright, enjoy wasting your money.
@@ThisisKyle MauLer, the guy who doesn't understand the difference between Objective and Subjective and makes needlessly long videos? No thanks 😂 been there done that and not happening again 😄
I know I'm 3 years late but I'm only binging this guy now for the quarantine. I'm here to leave a message for those who will be watching even later, and maybe don't know this. 47:52 has a small mistake: You absolutely can risposte while twohanding in DS1, you just have to be quick about it. Don't let your dreams be dreams, go and be the best Giant Dad you can be!
In my experience, it isn't a speed thing. I think From Soft must have messed up the timing window to where it is extremely small. That's why you see speedrunners and the like time there input at a specific point . I tried it quickly at first but only got a normal attack, then i tried at a different point in the animation, and now i get it every time.
@@ArvelDreth Certainly not objectively but you don't get the feeling that the adrenaline rush that you get from Dark Souls is more prevalent when you ditch the shield?
As someone whos favorite soulsborne game is Demon's Souls, i love Dark Souls 2. I think this video is, to a fairly large extent, ignorant and dismissive of many of the complaints people have about it, but it IS a great game and one i enjoy playing. I just dont like when people who defend it over correct and start pretending like its issues...arent issues lol
You criticise DS1 for the world being build in this interconnected way. But honestly, this was like the biggest selling point in Dark Souls to me. Traversing the DS1 world is the coolest shit I've ever had in gaming as the world starts to open up to you. You walk around this place and you turn a corner and suddenly it is completely different, but you go through it and "HOLY SHIT I'M BACK HERE"
He is not saying that the interconnected is wrong. He is saying that the mob positioning is off If you are going from B to C instead of A to B in the same area.
@@MarkVonBaldi The example he used makes no sense anyway. There's a key to a door that leads back to Firelink and by extension New Londo and the Undead Parish, just take the water wheel up from Blighttown. There's no reason to go back the way you came, especially because Domhnall moves back up by Firelink anyways. The only area that I didn't enjoy traversing was Darkroot Basin, purely because the bonfire wasn't warpable, which is a common issue with the rest of the game.
@@MarkVonBaldi Also, he said that because you had NO CHOICE of going back the way you came in DS2, it was superior, where DS1 gave you the option to go back the way you came, even if there's no reason for it... seems like a non issue to me, even though I understand the ABC --> CBA problem.
I see people bring this up any time I criticize dark souls. It's a cool little novelty sure, but it's not enough to make the entire game good. And it's only really like that for the first half as well.
i actually played with lock on in dark souls 2 because i played a mage type character and I had no problem because i learned to space ennemies attacks and i trained to use the camera correctly.
I love Dark Souls 2, a lot. Incredibly fun game that doesn’t deserve all it’s criticism. Many of your points I’d agree with. Though I heavily disagree with some of points against 1 in this video, almost all of them really. I maybe even enjoyed 2 more than 1 myself, but it’s very hard to make a case against DS1 when it comes to game design. It’s just better than 2 in a number of ways and almost all of your attempts to poke holes in what it’s known for are kinda weird. Certainly that are issues with it’s world structure but most of it’s praise is very well deserved. Then also one last thing, I feel Souls fans usually extrapolate way too much meaning from simple things in the games. There’s a number of examples of that here, but one that struck me in particular is the NG+ point. Not immediately thrusting you into NG+ was almost certainly just a QOL change, nothing more. There’s very very likely no extra intended meaning to that. It’s entertaining to think one up, and I even agree that the potential symbolism there is plausible, but there’s no way Fromsoftware intended that. I think the reverence to which some Souls fans hold these games up to is a bit worrying. This behavior is what leads to these made up hidden meanings. Many things, like that NG+ option, are just simply what they are and nothing more.
Definitely agree, some things are just the devs saying "You know, we shouldn't have done this in the last game, let's just fix it here". Not much else to it besides practicality
the nonlinearity is a good point but I liked the master key and the fact that you could do quelaag first if you wanted to. it makes subsequent runs much more fun
*laughs in a meter and a half of debree stopping every living being from entering the mighty castle of drangleic just because the the Shrine of Winter looks sexier and everyone wants to pass through that*
Hbomberguy: The story in Dark Souls 2 is actually kind of genius The story: “Welp, looks like theres a bit of rubble where I’m trying to go, better just kill every living creature in Drangleic!”
Playing World with a button to snap the camera at the monster but still keeping control of the camera at all times has worked the best for me (the common camera controls present in games before world). World's lock on really messed me up especially when mons got far more mobile
Having 2 be my entry into the From Soft games made this game special to me. The way I played it at first was with the knight class. When the hollows started throwing daggers at me, I learned to be as aggressive as possible unless I wanted to be chipped to death. The moment I got my hands on a shield, I was already aggressive. I learned that using a shield allows me to be even more up close and personal without as much punishment. I never read item lore but the world spoke volumes on it's own. Kingdom after kingdom. From the White towers upon the sea to the Iron Keep, all reduced to a land of bumbling undead yet all beautiful with their own color pallets and designs. I remember reaching the end, sitting upon the throne First in awe "I did it! I beat everyone!" then that mood melted away to "now what... do I share the same fate as that tall dead dude with a crown?" I guess I just got lucky enough to have a good experience. Maybe because it's my first, I like it so much.
@@jasonmendoza2044 Sadly, it's the same thing, every time, for every game. If developers change any aspect of their previous game in a sequel, there's hordes of whiny man-children, stomping the ground and screaming until either their moms or the developers step in to please the spoiled adult-brats. I'd say, a person who doesn't "enjoy" the absence of treasured features is not at fault. But anyone who responds with hatred needs a therapist.
I played Dark Souls 1 not long after it came out and liked it, but was never super into it. I loved Dark Souls 2 though, and when I went on and saw how everyone was saying it was too hard, I was quite confused. As I found the first game too hard and DKS2 just right. O_o I beat Smough and Ornstein first try, walking in blind with an unoptimized character. When i later learned how they were deemed "impossible" by such a large portion of the fanbase I was flabbergasted... I didn't think I was that good at games. XD For real though it was beginners luck, as I found them much tougher on my second and third playthorughs.
ds2 is by no means a bad game and you are well within your right to enjoy it, the reason why people give it so much hate is simply because most of what it does well is because of what it takes from the original but with tons of other things that make it much worse than the original. it isn't a bad game but it is much worse than the original
Having only bought and played SOTFS, I can't help but wonder what the game used to be. I remember getting really frustrated in Forest of the Giants because of just how MANY enemies there were around some corners, but once I got a playstyle down that could handle it I quite enjoyed it. I cannot imagine the game with less fuckers trying to swarm you
Woow you mean to tell me people bitch non stop about vanilla and there were LESS enemies? 😂 I thought it was the other way around having played SOFTS only
Even though I not always agree with mr. bomberguy, I usually respect him for his ability to reason his arguments. However, anyone who calls archers in ds1 oppressive right before definding the "shrine of slow moving homing projectiles fired at you from multiple angles while you slowly wade through waist deep water while being attack by crawly things in said water" IS A HORRENDOUS DEVIANT AND MUST BE PURGED!
Don't forget the fact even though hbomberguy complains about the archers, he praises The Gutter. As in, one of the absolute worst areas in the game, wherein a bunch of obnoxious, un-targetable statues keep shooting venom at you in the dark, so that you can't see them properly, right next to a bunch of other statues that look exactly the same but do nothing. Thus you're forced progress at an obnoxiously slow pace every time you traverse the area, even if you know the layout and enemy placement pretty well. At least the archers don't dictate the pace you take. You can just sanic your way past them, running as fast as you can, tank them with a Havel set, or take a middle-road approach and progress at a moderate pace while dodging just as the arrows are about to hit you.
Yeah this was the first of his videos I disagree with almost entirely. Like, his comparison between ds1 and 2 in terms of parrys where ds2 went completely overboard with it's silly "Oh god, my attack was deflected I shall lay down to ponder the futility of my existence" animation. I don't know how anyone could think that to be an improvement over ds1 animation wich gives ample time to react and doesn't make your enemy (or your character) look like a complete idiot. Also how the hell did he get the idea that you can'r do a riposte while 2 handing? Like, you have enough time to weapon swap AND 2 hand after a parry in ds1 that was even a common sight in duels.
GorillerViller I think the stupid riposte animation was added so that n00bz could perform that trick wherein you change your weapon to a massive cleaver after riposting and cause immense amounts of damage. The window in DkS1 was very small. But this unintended mechanic was unfair in the first place; they should have removed it, not closed the chasm between casuals and hardcore players. Someone wielding a scimitar should not be able to riposte for a 1-hit kill.
Leonardo Santos Dear god I just watched that prt again and he mentions how dark souls 2 even gives you an "extremely cool" sound cue when your parry was successful and I just..... I.... ok 1. Yes that sound is extremely cool 2. IT'S THE SAME ONE AS IN DARK SOULS AHHH hbomb wtf you doin man.
Man my issues with two have always been mechanical things to do with the game engine, weapon and armor degradation scaling with frame rate so that things break unusually quick on pc, that has only gotten worse with higher frame rates in recent years as the game ages, the soul count stuff where you could band apart playing with friends across multiple play throughs, that's all I can remember after all these years. The game was great, outside of some janky issues that arise from negligence towards pc players in making the port. Also the bonfire ascetics that increase the level of specific areas which is neat on it's own but the odd reliance on using that mechanic as the only source for rare armors for players to get rather than just not putting the armor that was often mediocre somewhere else or not there at all.
I played Dark Souls II for the first time last year and had a negative reaction to it, even after completing it multiple times. Well, it turns out the issue was the fact I jumped in to Scholar first per the recommendation of others. Last week I decided to track down the original PS3 and 360 versions of Dark Souls II to see the differences and I have put about eight hours into it so far. I'm having a much better time with it. Enemy layouts are much more manageable, there are less unnecessary obstacles blocking your way (like the stone statues keeping you from accessing certain areas early), and overall the progression just flows smoother and is more fun. Scholar seems like an edition meant for expert players. While I have no problem with that existing and I did get through it fine, it was more frustrating and thus less enjoyable. There seems to be a misconception going around now that it's the ideal version to play, but I think this is false and I would highly recommend new players try the original game first.
Valid point. 👍 I myself started with the original version and had lots of trouble with it because I wasn’t used to the game (despite having 150+ hours in DS1). The health-reduction mechanic is not needed imo and can severely hinder you when you’re new to the game (or the series). I’ve been having a much better time with the game with the SotFS because I got used to the original (DS2) game with time and have gotten the hang of it. The same was true with DS1 but I learnt the mechanics a lot faster thus got into the game easier. 👌
It's not a misconception that d SotFS is the way to play. Major preformance overhauls like jumps to 1080p and 60fps blow out of the water any gameplay alteration from the base game. This is emphasized by the fact that its advertised as the Definitive Edetion and the Director's Cut on Steam
I agree with you. I haven't played Scholar, but I did watch half of an LP of it and after Bamco finally put the original version of the game on sale on Steam I bought it and tried it and the difference in enemy amounts is insane to me. The lack of tons of the statues I remembered from the Scholar version... vanilla is way closer to a well designed game. The encounters are far more important to the game, and the flow is broken by the enemy spam. As are the literal barriers that weren't there. The only thing that the original sucked for in comparison was the lack of that shortcut in the area with the pirate ship. That bridge not being there is something I forgot hearing about and was confused on when I got there. It looks like it should have always been there. Weird choice in the original. Maybe the later areas were different, but the first half of the game i watched and I think it was largely handled better. Maybe the pursuer actually pursuing you in various areas is a good improvement, I don't know. I can see the argument on that being an improvement, but I could also see it as just filler. But considering the title the enemy has... you'd expect a bit more out of him than the original gave. But is it really fun to do the same fight over and over?... @ michael - I played on PC so was already getting 60fps in vanilla. There's a reason they still sell the original version of the game on Steam, while they delisted the original Dark Souls after it's remaster. Because the alterations changed the core experience of the game.
Also the DLC's reinforce your point about the inevitable cycles. Each one is about a king who almost lost their throne to a queen who was a descendant of Manus. They all mirror Vendric's story
The DLC are where the narrative and gameplay really shine (like in DS1 btw), it's a shame they weren't discussed more. Probably because they aren't criticized so much.
The Gutter actually has more than just one direction you can go about it, HOWEVER you are pretty much locked into that direction once you start it. You can especially feel this if you want to fully light up the gutter. Once you light that sconce there's no real reason for you to go back that way and it feels good too.
20:00 Interestingly, I locked on during the Twin Dragonrider fight and similar fights but had mastered the flow of the encounter to the point that I was able to dodge attacks without looking, I just knew about when they were supposed to land.
Good guy timestamps
00:00 INTRO
1:29 Part 1: HEALING
9:27 Part 2: ENEMY DESIGN
24:12 Part 3A: WORLD DESIGN (Interconnectedness)
32:30 Part 3B: WORLD DESIGN (Non-Linearity)
43:54 Part 4: PLAY CONDITIONING
50:22 Part 5: STORY COMPARISON
1:06:02 Part 6: THE DLC & SCHOLAR OF THE FIRST SIN
1:10:45 CONCLUSION
screw the both of you
Dark soul Gael Why so angry? And there's only one person
The Bright Lord hes mad because Hbomb won't give him any attention awwww.
The Bright Lord he didnt finish the part in his special ed class where the teacher discusses proper arguments and having common sense in general
Siba Smith do you use Bots why the fuck do you have 2.3 Million subs and only 8 views per video
I think you sell the fight with Gwyn really short by saying the best they could do was put some sad music over it. A lot of the things you praise about Vendrick apply to Gwyn as well. Gwyn is hyped up for the entire game as a literal god among men, with a title like "The Lord of Sunlight" that can shoot Zeus-style lightning bolts powerful enough to rip the scales off of dragons. When you finally get there he doesn't even get an intro cutscene like 99% of the bosses do; you enter the fog gate and this withered old man just mindlessly charges you. His name is changed to "Lord of Cinder" and it's implied that his power, over the long course of guarding the first flame, dwindled tremendously. You go in expecting this huge final boss but instead it's a rather simple one-on-one duel against a "god" so weak you can parry his ass and riposte him into oblivion.
Don't get me wrong, I love Dark Souls 2 and I really like what they did with Vendrick, but let's not act like Gwyn's presentation wasn't just as good, if for different reasons.
give this guy/gal a prize. yep he absurdly reduced a really good lore and praised a very derivative one.
>that can shoot Zeus-style lightning bolts powerful enough to rip the scales off of dragons
you're greatly overbloating the implication of his power, probably because you've watched copious amounts of lore videos providing ideas or interpretations of it.
However, nothing we see in the intro cutscene implies he was uniquely powerful at all; literally every lightning bolt launched at the dragon does as much damage as his.
His bossfight doesn't have a cutscene, and is extremely streamlined is because the second half of the game was notoriously rushed, not because of some deeper reason theorists desperately use mental gymnastics to try and claim.
jerkin off you're tripping. loreists are what I hate most about DS because they rarely agree and they all swear they're right, but he was still a lord. we're meant to have high expectations to get there and be let down. he's a husk now. he split his lord soul and burned the rest fighting off entropy for his whole universe. there's no gymnastics necessary. it's laid out for you plain as day.
I would've enjoyed the story elements of Vendrick's hollowed state if he were actually a hollow, who's weak and killing him would be like putting down a suffering pet. But instead he's a super-powered gank-machine with a stupid gimmick, unless you hunt down extremely out of place items that make it so that your attacks can damage him. TL;DR if you're going to connect story and gameplay, do it, don't just talk about it.
+A Spooky Dog funny how people like to act like Gwyn was supposed to be unstoppable but was a joke, in reality he was the hardest boss unless you mastered parrying. He didn't seem like the ultimate personification of one of the two central themes of Dark Souls, one being duality and the other which Gwyn supposedly is the incarnation of, being entropy. The sad music was good but he didn't seem withered, he was relentless and you had to hold him back using the stupid pillars in his boss room, trash design. Really Vendrick was a much better iteration on everything people value about Gwyn.
“He roll and dodge like normal people “
Artorias: *Does a frontflip and jump 15 feet high*
He said he *is* a larger than life character who was corrupted by the abyss, and I do see your point.
But just like his point, and I realize you're probably joking, but he isn't a Dragon that just takes off, does fire or toxic breath attack, who also destroys your armor. He doesn't summon other bosses like the BITC- I mean Elana infinitely like some hoe or slu-, nor does he stand as tall and have as great a reach as the Giant Lord. He ain't floating around spamming spells like the Darklurker. He jumps, and leaps, albeit greater distances than the player, he swings and hurls his body around but still maintains "human" motions. He is a proper Dark Souls "knight fight".
And yes, my last name is Obvious, you may refer to me as Captain or Sir.
Ayay Captain
@@daringdarius5686 so "equal footing" is based on how the fight looks? Not taking into account the fact that mechanically, he does not share ANYTHING with you.
If you remove textures and graphics from the artorias fight, till you're left with just the hitboxes. He would function(mechanically) the same way that a dragon or any giant boss would. Because harris points make no sense and he hasn't defined them at all. What does "equal footing" mean to him? I dunno I'm left to guess.
@@bigbear5767
Firstly... I don't think I mentioned "equal footing" anywhere, not sure if you're quoting me or the video, don't even think it's been said in the thread.
Secondly, it's not equal footing. Didn't even remotely claim this..IT'S A BOSS FIGHT! Of course the odds are in the boss' favor! You have to use skill, intelligence, cunning, tricks or all of the above! It ISN'T on equal footing. Someone who has specced into a pyromancer has a different moveset than a faith/dex build. Or a greatshield vigor build. Or an UGS build. Different mechanics, doesn't mean other players are any less human. (Subtle nod to farrong UGS and the flaming dual Ultra-Cheese great sword in DS3)
BUT! If you were to consider if it's more "fair" or *more equal* to fight artorias, a humanoid grounded, who can't hit you from afar (he must lunge at you), doesn't have access to poison, doesn't breathe fire, doesn't use sorceries or miracles, can't swim in poison unaffected or have a posse to back him up, doesn't fly or heal himself or summon other monsters, and instead just has a big o'le sword, some high stats and some big movements and swings, yea. I'd definitely say fighting artorias is more fair than sinh, or midir, or the ancient dragon, or the dark lurker, or Elana (seriously FUCK Elana) or *name 50%+ boss fights of any dark souls game*. It is more "equal" than *other bosses*. Ya both got big shanking tools, somebody to shank and a reason not to get shanked.
Lastly on the topic of hitboxes: Ummm... If you think a giant in the game is capable of the dexterity and flexibility required to jump up, do front flips and land, at that speed I mean okay.
Ditto goes for the dragons. They could be flying in loop de loops, but their turning circle wouldn't be as compact and quick nor anything like this. If you scale a dragon that large, they would be moving at speeds, in a circle, upwards of 100 mph, meaning they can easily charge you at probably 300mph+. Hint: you don't want that in a game. That's, uhh, kinda fast. I think they move at 30mph->60mph at most in the games.
@@daringdarius5686 sorry, I thought you were up to date. Yes harris absolutely said "equal footing" to describe the artorias fight, many times if I remember correctly. I'm saying that that makes absolutely no sense.
My hitbox argument still stands. Take any large or fast moving boss and his rules also apply to them and he doesn't have anything that you have other than armor and a sword.
Harris must do anything to push this narrative that ds2 is simply better. But there is a problem, he also liked the artorias fight, so how can he make an exception for him? Easy create this baseless idea that artorias somehow has something in common with ds2s design. Just watch maulers series for Christ sakes. He literally goes over word for word why he's wrong.
Have you looked at the artorias fight? Have you seen his moves?
He has an insane gap closer. He has an arial attack were he jumps 10 feet in the air, extremely fast swings with very short tells unlike the player. And the way he dodges is absolute insanity.
Harris does a very bad job explaining what he actually means by him being your "equal". I think he means any humanoid with limbs and a head. But even that doesn't really make sense since, again, you two have very different mechanics and his fighting style is absolutely nuts.
I can’t believe how uncontroversial this video is! No dislikes!
Truly is a breath of fresh air. I have high hopes for the inevitable "difficulty debate" we'll see as soon as elden ring drops
thank you susan! no, you guys really should use that extension before they ban it for "misconduct of terms or conditions" or some shite like that
ok but actually the anti dislike plugin says it only has 285 dislikes which is incredibly surprising
@@Renteks- 21k dislike according to me
@@Tototoo88 weird
H-bomb 5 years ago: I cut this out of my video bc it would be too long
H-bomb now: I made a 3.5 hour long video about a pretty alright game
Don’t forget Tommy talaricos mother is proud of him!
*Character development*
And he still won't leave the stalker dark sky rant in
It's a shit video about a shit game, he doesn't even defend it in the least convincing way possible, almost everything he says is objectively wrong lmao
@@caolanmoore4027or any of the Phantom Menace rants
I enjoy the fact this video stirs up more controversy than Hbomber's political videos.
Hbomberguy makes a video about gay representation and HP Lovecraft: I sleep
Hbomberguy makes a video defending Dark Souls 2: *GAMERS RISE UP*
Probably because Hbomb's political views aren't really that controversial.
@@stevencleere4912 "Probably because Hbomb's political views aren't really that controversial.
"
They kind of are in the gaming's community at least sadly.
@@Arkayjiya That's because he's wildly flailing about trying to justify Dark Souls 2, which he does by constantly lying about Dark Souls 1 and saying that 2 is better than 1.
@@SocBeefBoi I don't think you have any idea what we were talking about because it has nothing to do with Dark Souls xD
"It's almost like this game was made for people who don't want to run in circles for hours." ~ Man who spent 60+ hours in Pathologic
Congrats, I somehow found you in top comments
Its also funny considering how you fight so many enemies in this game, even in his footage
@@liamfackelman6582 Yeah it did
Lol, I think Harris made it pretty clear that he didn't want to run in circles for hours while playing Pathologic.
what you said would be ironic if hbomberguy had said that pathologic was a fun game instead of a pain simulator and more of an artsy game
The poison dart guys in Blight Town felt like a mini boss. I was relieved they didn't respawn. Killing them felt like an achievement.
as Joseph Anderson likes to point out, they're a kind of shortcut you unlock.
Almost all areas have some permadeath enemies.
But somehow the poisonguys are treated as they are an admission of error by the developers.
going by that logic the gargoyles in Arnor Londo are a mistake? Or the necromancers in the catacombs?
Or maybe put some poison resist on and the poison guys are not a real trouble.
And as you slay them you make a testament on how you conquered the area. like all other permadeath enemies.
@@Sapeidra its toxic you need to resist, and they will overwhelm pretty much any toxic resist you can get before them.
Doesn't help that their toxic is way worse than any other toxic.
@@Ornithopter470 Poison and toxic are different status conditions, but your poison resistance stat governs your toxic resistance and your normal poison resistance. If you explore you can find enough clothing to tank more than 1 dart without the bar filling up, or find the spider shield if you didn't start bandit class.
@@SheheenFans didn't know that both checked poison resist. And you can tank one dart with naked, I think. Would have to check that. Issue is that you normally get at least 2.
Start playing this game sober and get progressively more drunk as you play to get the full progressive hollowing experience. When you get good and drunk you end up in places in the game with no idea how you got there or how to get back. It’s meta as fuck.
😂😂😂
Dont talk ish i no wut im doin.. why am i naked?
my favorite way to play dark souls was get completely faded then fight bosses- ended up killing gwyn last night after a heavy sesh
@@pynk7ivory Drunk, listening to a podcast, and playing a FS game for the 30th time is my happy place
I'd like this absolutely genius comment but I really don't wanna ruin the perfectly even 100 likes :::
12:09 "he never comes off as ridiculous"
*front* *flip* *1-hand* *greatsword* *slam 3 times in a row*
He probably refers to the fact that all his attacks are straightforward and easy to dodge when you get the hang of it. He's not ridiculous like he jumps up in the air and does a 6 attack combo like slave knight gael
@@martijnp yeah the timing was just funny :)
@@bjarkijonsson5653 to be fair, everything looks a little clunky in ds1-2
martijn p woah it's almost like artorias isn't the final boss for like the whole souls series excluding bloodborne. Gee I wonder why the series known for difficulty has a hard final boss which does have patterns that can be understood just people would rather complain...
Aaron Mizener i don’t think they meant it as an insult to gael, nobody is denying that his fight is great, but it’s certainly nothing you’d ever have seen a player doing, for instance, as a weapon art (excluding gael’s executioner blade, which, let’s face it, has a much more watered down version of what gael does)
I just love hearing you gush about "honorable duel" kind of fights vs enemies on equal footing knowing 2 years later Sekiro would come out being essentially a whole game about that.
until you reach a moment of "here is a giant enemy crab"
Sekiro isn't that at all
Then how does one explain Gun Saint Isshin Ashina?
@@rekiu1314 what? that is literally the whole point of sekiro, to be fighting enemies on actual 1-on-1 sword fights instead of the weird dodge-and-hit dance you do in soulsborne. literally the only exception to this is demon of hatred
@@notaspider4084 gardian ape
"Artorias isn't ridiculous"
queue footage of Artorias spin-jumping with a big fuckoff sword before doing a superhero landing that creates a small crater
Yeah it's easy boss fight!! Fairly malaynd
Boss post-Bloodborne bosses jumping everywhere like a madman.
"Yep all good" :)
Dark Souls 1 Artorias
"So hard, why this happen" >:(
Tbf that's actually something the player can do if you use his weapon. An invader in full Artorius gear could do the same thing. Given we can use 500 lb Ultra Greatswords that isn't surprising.
@leolux6056 it was sarcasm
@leolux6056 BRO I WAS JOKING
beginning January 1st I played through, for the first time, DS1, DS2, DS3, Bloodborne and the Demon's Souls remake, and I can say with confidence that Dark Souls 2 is a video game.
That's a bold claim.
But I must agree.
its one of the games ever
I wasn't sure at first, but the more I think about it... yeah, you might be right
@@nerfytheclown bro you probly searched up Polybius by accident
Faction neutral npc moment
few things in the souls series devastated me as much as fighting all the way to the bottom of the tomb of the giants before having placed the lordvessel (as i was struggling with smough and ornstein and wanted to level my character more to help improve my odds) only to find that fucking golden mist, THEN realising i had to climb all the way back out again
Holy shit, same kinda thing happened during my first playthrough. There was a point where I didn't know where I was supposed to go next, so I thought, "Oh, maybe I'm supposed to go further and further down into the pitch-black skeleton pit." Through much suffering, I finally hit a roadblock when I found that wall of piss mist, and then a horrific realization set in that I can't teleport back to the surface and have to run all the way back up.
I just restarted when it happened to me, I couldn't find the way back up
The thing that kills me about that is you can see the bed of chaos and ash lake from deep in the tomb, why the fuck didn't they just connect these areas.
"But Dark Souls 1 is so great - it's like a Metroidvania where you can go anywhere and then everything just comes together brilliantly" 😂 (except when it doesn't)
@@SuperLotus It comes back together tbh, but only for the first half of the game, all the lord souls are pretty much dead ends lmao
the geography of dark souls 2 makes no sense!!
me (bad memory, no sense of direction): huh?
Same
Me, a pretentious game design student: IMMERSIVE FALLACY!!!
In a game with such a focus on every character suffering from dementia that leaves them wondering where they are and what they're doing, no one thinks to wonder whether asking "Wait, how did I get here from there?" is the entire freaking point, lol
@@Jekyllstein_Gray Its not an open world anyway lol. I was not bothered.
💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
The way I’ve barely heard the name of most of these games but I’ve spent critical hours of my life watching every single 65 hour essay on all of them… this guy can talk.
i know the feeling :-)
Bro fr
Play them
play the games immediately
play them now
this video was the biggest drama the souls borne community ever had and i refuse to believe it was 3 years ago
Why is this video so controversial?
@@mikeexits Because of how wrong hbomberguy is and how he shits on a youtuber that makes better arguments and is smarter than him
@@NenaWednesdays "I can't accept a different and correct perspective"
@@aaronbennett4767 I could if it's properly supported. You realize he contradicts himself in this video several times? And that's not even getting into the deceptive editing and constant strawmanning re: Matthewmatosis.
@@NenaWednesdays Nah Hbomber guy is right. :) DS2 is better.
It's really odd that I absolutely adore DS2, but for almost none of the reasons Harry does.
Aqua Necromancer probably
so true
he didnt do this game justice even though he was trying his best, somehow 😂😂
Welcome to the subjectivity of Art!
Same here. I still like it the least of all Souls games though. It's just a nice goofy adventure for me.
Harris: Don't play Dark Souls II: Scholars of the First Sin as your first Dark Souls game
Me, whose already sunk in 50 hours: Uh...
Im looking through the comments to see if anyone mentions this too cuz i started playing the scholars edition and trying not to feel dumb about it
Same here, DSII: SotFS was the game Dark Souls game to really hook me, which is why I go to bat for it ^_^
@@MocharaidThree i only have access to scholar of the first sin and really wanna give DS2 a try, is it worth?
@@monkey__feet___ For me, personally, it was the game that made me like Dark Souls, so I'd say go for it! Lemme know what you think if you do!
hu, yeah I only played scholar edition and it was one my first souls game (previously beat demons and reached bloodmoon in bloodborne), loved it and I don't think its a problem to recomend this version, it's hard yeah but thats the point if you are buying this game.
It might actually be harder for people who played the normal OG version first bc it messes with expectations maybe?
Wait, holdup. So the scholar of the first sin version is harder? This was not made clear to me when I got it, no wonder I had more trouble than my homies and they didn't know what I was talking about. Thanks for the new cope for an old wound lol.
it redid a bunch of enemy placements, generally with the goal of making a replay rewarding & still challenging to those who already played the original. this kind of inherently makes it harder, as its a response to it's own original design. scholar also has way more enemies in general, as in the amount of bodies on screen at any given point.
Sotfs isn’t that hard
I'd say some areas are easier in vanilla, some harder in Scholar. Scholar made the path to the Ancient Dragon a cakewalk and if you have a torch equipped for the Duke's Dear Freja she becomes a complete joke. Other areas, I wouldn't call difficult but they were certainly tedious to get through, particularly with enemies being able to cancel the fog wall animation.
I usually like Hbomb's videos, and while I agree that Dark Souls 2 is good, I just can't agree with some of his takes on Dark Souls 1 here.
Like for instance about the map; he finds it more interesting that it connects in ways that don't make sense, but that to me just seems like regular video game fair. The interconnectedness of Dark Souls 1 was much more impressive to me, as that takes more effort to pull off, and it's also a great feeling learning how to navigate the dangerous world in new and faster ways. It feels really memorable and rewarding finding a new path to the hub when you haven't unlocked warp yet and could really use that shortcut.
He instead of telling how Dark souls story is complex and deep and everything he said it like was saying to a child go bells then kill lords then link fire which he skipped over all the details that made DS 1 good in the first place then he starts in DS 2 saying the details like it is so biased which i don't like .
He makes this thing on combat world and everything instead of comparing them fair he is just biased
Exactly, many things he's saying that he likes less in DS1 than in DS2 are things that are more generic in DS2. Dark Souls with its connectivity and focus to go through levels back and forth (and get to know them well) made it so unique. After playing each game once I could remember most of most DS1 areas, how they were constructed, and maybe 1 or 2 of DS2, the ones where I died the most...
He is so needlessly antagonistic and passive aggressive towards MatthewMatosis' critique.
He has this weird problem where he can't just argue a point. He has to affect this smug attitude to make himself feel like his position is just so clearly superior.
Usually, in this video, it's clearly for the sake of humor ("This is treason, and I'll see you in hell"), but other times he's just being an ass. ("Matthew simply didn't like Dark Souls II as much because he failed to learn what the game was trying to teach him").
You can love Dark Souls II, but stop pretending people are simply dummies because they didn't.
Finding DS1 interconnectedness more impressive doesn't do anything to counter his point. He even said he loved the interconnectedness too, he found it really cool.
What he did say was that that having to design areas such that they can be traversed both ways limits what you can do with the area in certain ways, which is just objectively true. This doesn't mean it's bad or unimpressive, it just means he thinks it could've had more interesting design and enemy placement if they didn't have to account for players having to go back the same way.
@@realmarsastro But that would make it have less interesting design since it would be more generic. If it lost that interconnectedness it wouldn't be as unique and we wouldn't be talking about the areas almost 10 years later.
A critique on your critique around the 41 minute mark: It could easily be argued that anyone that was able to make their way through the first Dark Souls would have an advantage in trying to make it through Dark Souls 2. Your friend not asking questions on how to get through the game is possibly attributed to their growth as a player, not the level design of Dark Souls 2.
There was also a fully established community and forums where he could seek out help or get straightforward answers when DS2 came out.
DS1 had none of that safe for a few Demons Souls enthusiasts but that was really only a spec compared to what came into existence after DS1.
Is nobody going to cover how easy DS2 was or how linear it is? Sure, you get to choose WHICH linear path you get to go down, but there's little branching off at all. Sure, linearity isn't all that bad but it makes things easy. Piss easy. With 4 areas just HANGING AROUND at the beginning of DS2, none of them were really allowed to bring up the difficulty. Maybe Freja's area (can't remember the name since the atmosphere is so pitifully unremarkable) turns up the damage numbers on the spider hollows but if you even get hit by one of them, I consider you bad.
Seriously, they move at like 2km/h. Just like, go around them and get to the boss. Boss souls are the only ones that matter in the long run anyways. Trash mobs give like 500 souls max in NG so thankfully, grinding is pretty ineffectual compared to actually playing the game.
Since most, if not all, of the mobs are these painfully slow enemies that always group up in threes or fours, it's a lot easier to just run past em. They can't catch up to you because if three or four FAST monsters constantly attacked you, then the game would be seen as unfair.
Not only all this, but with SO MANY HUMAN ENEMIES, telegraphing on enemy attacks is ridiculously, hilariously, pitifully, saddeningly, punishingly.... easy to read. Enemy raises arm? Stop holding forward on control stick. Now hold left until you're close to behind them. Press R1. There, you just beat all but like 2 bosses in this entire game.
Off the top of my head, those two would the Throne Watcher/Defender and Freja. Everyone else in the entire game can be beaten by backstab fishing. Since they're so fixed on homing in on you via rotating and not... idk... having AOE attacks or moving, or being well programmed, you can easily get at least 2 big attacks in before the enemy has full spun around. Took me about an afternoon to beat DS2 after I figured out how vulnerable everything is in this game to backstabs compared to 1. At least they put up a shield or had an animation to back away from you. Dark Souls 2 is so easy and sloppy, it can't even prevent me from cheesing it through 8 hours of backstabs.
Not that I needed to. About 15 minutes in DS1 can prepare you for #2. Imagine what 150 hours got me
Everytime I watch that bit after actually going away and playing the game, I like to think that its because his friend gave up on the game because of how unintuative the progression is, how broken the healing is, how stiff and glitchy the fighting it and how there are areas filled with ganks despite his lies in this video.
@@ArtyoumPlays I know it's been 3 years, but I felt the need to make this reply.
if you really try to give DS2 a chance to be enjoyed, you will enjoy it. That I can guarantee. Speaking as someone who played and loved DS1 and DS3 long before DS2, I can still honestly say I enjoyed experiencing DS2 the most of the trio. I never found the game easier or more linear than any of the others.
To respond to your first paragraph, the game isn't linear. Objectively speaking it isn't. It grants so many different paths and ways to reach the castle in the first section that has already been brought up in the video. Each path is close enough to the same difficulty that while each person will typically take certain paths first, it could be challenged in any order and still feel legitimate. When I first played, I remember walking into the room with the petrified pyromancer on the switch and found that so interesting. I found it interesting enough that I searched up how to free her and got a fragrant branch from the merchant in the forest. Freja ended up being the first old one's soul that I got in my first ever playthrough of the game, and it's become my habit to go that way because I got used to that path.
Every time I tried to explore and enjoy the world in the first game, I was punished for it. Not only was I was punished, I got through it after a long time, and then reached a massive wall that told me what I did was wrong. It told me that what I did lacked value. The first game didn't permit me to enjoy the game outside of a set path and even if that path looped around and intersected itself, it didn't feel nonlinear. The first game felt, to me, interconnected but bland. It was a game that forced me to go in circles getting keys and ringing bells to go to new branches of the world, and it was tedious. I didn't feel that in DS2. Don't misunderstand me, I loved my time playing DS1, but the way DS2 was made brought more enjoyment to me. It made me feel more important as a player than DS1 ever did, and that's why I enjoyed it more than the other games.
For your next point about enemies being too easy to cheese, I'd say that's your fault. I got the black knight halberd on my first run of DS1 and I didn't enjoy most of the bosses as a result. I used an OP weapon, and I got severely disappointed when I finally reached Ornstien and Smough. My build killed them in 10-12 hits total and I had a moment after the fight when I thought "really? This fight is what was leading up to getting this magic relic that lets me literally teleport? DS1 is, to a degree, easier to trivialize even if not every method is through backstabs.
Maybe it's because of the mindset I adopted when I began playing, but I don't think I backstabbed very much at all when I played. Every fight was a different method of exploring how fights could be done. DS1 lacked that. Encounters in DS1 could always be calculated down into a different type of block, dodge, hit, repeat. By the time that becomes even remotely viable in DS2, it feels foreign to you because you were taught to take more risks and do more with what you had. If you didn't enjoy DS2 because you thought it was too easy through backstabs, then maybe you should have done something else.
In my later runs that didn't have the black knight halberd, I learned why everyone else seemed to love the O and S fight in DS1. I changed the way I played that part, and my experience improved as a result.
Playing a game in one unenjoyable way and ignoring the countless other, more fun methods you were given to choose from doesn't make the game a bad game. It makes you a bad player for not choosing the way that would have brought you more enjoyment. Games are made to be enjoyed. If you can't enjoy it no matter what you do, then maybe it's the fault of the developer, but if you dislike one method and never change from that method you know you dislike, you don't have the right to say the game is at fault. The game gave you every chance and incentive to change, but it was you who chose to rebuke it.
All in all, you're allowed to have your opinion. I honestly believe what you say was your honest experience. The thing that I find disappointing with your comment is that you decided that your experience meant the game itself was bad when you didn't go in intending to find an enjoyable game. Maybe it's true that the way the game is made makes it unfun for you, but there's a good reason that DS2 is the Dark Souls game I return to when I find myself wanting to play the series again even if it was the third souls game I played.
The reason no one is talking about those aspects of the game you find problematic is because other people adapted. Any game has flaws, and the player's job is to at least attempt to find a fun experience despite those flaws. That's what every player did with DS1, and that's what every player did with DS2. The only difference was the set of flaws people had to adapt to. The reason you maybe didn't enjoy the game as much and think it's far more poorly designed is because you didn't try to adapt to the newer set of flaws. You went into a new game and tried to play it like a previous game, and that's not possible even within franchises.
Not trying to adapt to a new game is your fault, not the game's. You need to accept that and either move to a different game or try to enjoy the game in a new way. What you don't need to do is continue spending time disliking a game that you dislike. Find a way to enjoy it, or forget it. There's no need for something else.
@@timmothyjames7876 Kind of a lopsided argument there, isn't it? So it's the players fault if the game seems to actively downgrade it's mechanics and we don't like how it did that? Literally dumbing down AI to the point where it doesn't even have character left in it and not dumbing down our playstyle is our fault? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a little aggressive here, but what you just wrote is a literate slap to the face. By your logic, it's your fault for not looking deeply enough into the world that is DS1 and picking out the well thought out the narrative is entwined with item drops and NPC locations. Like discovering the Black Iron set and realizing the the fate of Black Iron Tarkus. Simple, concise, and tells a story with only a few points. I would argue that DS1 did a far better job of building a world than DS2 building pretty sky boxes and video game levels back from the 80s. Did you even care to stop and compare Dranglaic castle with Lordran? At least Lordran put a couple bedrooms in like an actual castle would.
Also, at the beginning of DS2, you only really have 2 pathways open at the beginning, 3 if you get the cats ring. Otherwise, you'll need to follow the two paths until to find the items needed to unlock the rest of the paths.
I kind of feel like pointing out that I played through DS1 for the first time with a dex build on a friend's advice. I had little health and even less armor, so taking a hit was pretty devastating. However, I did carry a shield around. I had a light roll, lots of I-frames, but also constantly blocked. Because shields in dark souls can be incorporated in many kinds of builds, not just "hit-trade" builds like high-poise slow-roll builds. A light shield in DS1 means you have the ability to parry, a very cool and dynamic ability to use. And even a small shield blocked considerable amounts of damage, while dropping it to attack took no time at all.
TL;DR: shields aren't that bad in DS1, and don't lock you in a passive playstyle. However, I can see how they insentivise you to play that way.
Went through the whole of dark souls 1 role-playing as a knight with a sword and shield and I gotta say using a shield to beat the game is totally viable apart from a few times where two handing and dodging is better.
I also played through with a light dex build. I think I ended the game with a vitality of, like, 16-18? basically all bosses could 2 shot me. My main shield was the grass crest because of the stamina buff and I spent most fights balancing keeping my shield up to give me time to think, dropping it to recover stamina and dodging to give an opening to attack. It's a fun gameplay loop, and I think it's closer to the intent behind the design of shields.
Ds1 is probably the most unbalanced in the series, strength builds were sooo crazy
@@carrops black knight weapons
Thats why I've heard that deprived is the best starting class for new players, since you start with a weak shield, so it encourages you to not rely on it too much
The thing I think many players should learn is that they should nly heal during a punish opportunity, for example, the best time to heal during a fight against gael is after he does the leaping attack since that has a long recovery animation
Frankly you shouldnt have to heal at all if you never get hit unless your playing dks2 where you take damage for no reason at all. I'm looking at you smelter 0.0
@@kylemenosbro said “just don’t get hit”
@@namarie.2289 true tho
@@kylemenos tbf I did no-hit 2 bosses so far, Midir and Maliketh. I know fairly well how these games work
@@limb-o7180 Never said you didnt know anything about the bosses. Just saying I dont think you should take damage for being close to an enemy. thats some bs
whenever i talk about games, movies etc. i always have to second guess my opinions because are they my own, or did i just hear them in a review at some point
If you agree that's your opinion, but it is just that you couldn't express it before
@@armored1033 not necessarily true
@@marciamakesmusic How is it not true? If you agree with something, then it is your opinion that it is correct. It doesn't matter if you heard it from someone else, because it became your opinion, as well.
@@josiahferrell5022 I'm pretty sure he just likes disagreeing with people for fun judging by his other comments on here.
still an opinion you agree with so it's okay...
or did i tell you that because someone told me it's okay?
Talks about balanced npc fights
Shows Jester Thomas
Though to be fair, a player invasion is leagues less balanced
@@justsomeguy6841 depends
Honestly I didn't think Jester Thomas was all that hard. The dude has no poise so you can use a decently fast weapon to just cheese him if you want to, no pyromancy comes out fast enough to avoid stunlock. Power stancing with a straight sword in the left and a thrusting sword in the right and doing a basic L1+R1 combo annihilated him pretty efficiently for me
One thing that I absolutely hate about the npc encounters is that when I hit the enemy npc with my greatsword he does not budge at all and keeps hitting me like a little bitch with 4000hp and I even with 120 poise still get staggered. Using the slam of ultra greatswords and clubs & shit is for pussies.
You didn"t fight npcs in demon souls xd, that was truly a hell, specially the one in the poison swamp aginst a specter with a sword that ignore shields
"I like having friends"
- shows footage of an NPC summon
Forever Alonne.
Vyers Reaver. 😄
felicia the brave is my friend..
Nice pun.
Haha I get it it’s like knight alonne right?? Hahah!!!1!
you mean forever "sir alonne"
Finally completed all Soulsborne games (minus Elden Ring). You def made me appreciate Dark Souls 2 a lot more. You're spot on about the whole knowing when to lock-on bit.
However I strongly disagree with the criticism of Dark Souls 1 for having a feasible interconnected world. That feeling of going through a new section and seeing it lead back to somewhere familiar was amazing and encouraged exploration. I thought that was one of the strongest points.
And I love that they brought that interconnection back in the DLCs
@@scandalouspanda7489 Makes me wish that Dark Souls Remastered had taken more liberties, like making Blighttown a one-way trip, giving access to teleportation to all accessible bonfires from the start, and ofc actually turning Demon Ruins into a finished proper level.
@@AnglerbeI mean it’s remastered, not remade
@@Anglerbe Teleportation from the start would completely invalidate the interconnected world
"deus ex lets do that one" did that one take FIVE YEARS?
Worth it, best Three Hours Thirty Three Minutes Thirty Three Seconds spent in AGES
Replaying the game, there was one major issue I had with 2. There were countless instances of invisible lines you crossed that scripted everyone in the room to gank you, and this included unreachable enemies in hidden spots that you couldnt flush out with a bow. These enemies often times would also sprint as fast as you did, and often had too much poise to be stunned. These fights were often just not fun, especially on repeated attempts.
especially bad on SotFS, flashbacks of iron keep
Uhhh just kill the enemies on the way then
"just kill the enemies on the way then" bit fucking hard when they aren't "on the way" but rather 50 fucking meters forwards with 1 or more walls between you until their sword is up your ass while you are trying to kill the 4 other dudes blocking your path to the boss.
@Asgth I feel your pain
@@asgth6147 kill them until they despawn /s
There is one thing I still admire of DKS2; Fashion Souls. Clothes and armors are well designed, they look so good.
Literally the only reason to play a game.
Ah, I see you're an undead of culture as well
@@beanieguitarguy4070 that and the fact that any build you can think of is viable with the right gear.
And you can then rock the sickest outfit to boot. :)
@@KRIMZONMEKANISM Exactly. The only game with both Sorcery, and even FAITH as a viable option for PvP.
@@supergoodadvice853 except pure sorcery. that one sucks. much much better on ds3
Elden ring was my first souls game. After beating it I went back and played the others from the first one onto the second and I remember a comment I saw about elden ring from someone online who said if you can learn how to fight without the lock on always being on then you will be better at the game. And in DS 2 that advice really helped me out
playing without lock-on is fine for melee, but free-aiming spells rarely works out. seems like even when your camera is positioned completely straight ahead, the projectile always travels either way over your aim point, or directly to your feet. wish they had a crosshair-based aim for spells like they do for bows/crossbows.
for me, lock-on is suitable for humanoid bosses. But for larger size bosses, without lock-on is better.
47:50 You can get a riposte while twohanding a weapon. It's something people do a lot in pvp. You simply didn't twohand your weapon fast enough and the riposte window closed.
I remember seeing that being confused and more than a little irritated.
He wasted time walking into his face, stood still for a bit, then pressed R1. Is he doing this on purpose lmao
@@derpi3438yeah because this entire video is comprised of him being a disingenuous moron
Complains about walking to the bosses in ds1
*Frigid outskirts has entered the chat*
See MauLer for analysis. 😂
One boss does not speak for a wider trend though. It IS the worst area of the game, but luckily that's a DLC thing that's not even required. Izalith is an entire third of the Lordsoul quest (feels more like half) that you can only skip most of if you max out spider covenant and know the shortcut.
@@WeskAlber yeah I enjoy dark souls 2 and it is my favorite in the series. I just think the frigid outskirts deserves to be mentioned.
@@WeskAlber Nashandra is an 80 second walk. Longer than any in DS1. Velstadt is a 60 second walk. As long as the longest run in DS1. Lud & Zallen is about a 300 second run, and that's if you know which way to go as a very experienced player. That's about four times the longest boss run of DS1. Those three are just off the top of my head. See MauLer's response videos for some more examples, he lists about five DS2 boss runs that are longer than any of DS1.
In other words, no the one boss doesn't speak for a wider trend. But the five bosses or so definitely do.
@@TheStraightestWhitest Capra is NOT a 60 second walk. There's no way. That trip always took like 2 mins at best.
Izalith, no way that's 60 seconds either. Trip to the fire asylum demon too. Even the close bonfire to Quelagg... No way that's a single minute. The Kiln is also no way shorter than the trip to Nash.
Walks in the series have always been pretty bad because they're meant to be full levels not walks. I think DS2 feels way better about it due to stupidly generous checkpointing for most of the game. Only a few places starve you where DS1 starving was a feature while DS2 most bosses have a bonfire what feels like super close. Maybe a lot of it is thanks to my skill level increasing in the years between DS1 and today, but I didn't get sick of the walks nearly as quickly as I did to Capra and Quelagg
Dear Hbomber,
I genuinely got my feelings hurt, when you mentioned that the Adjudicator fight from Demon's Souls was "the most forgettable fight in the game"... It was my favorite boss... I hate you, please continue to make videos.
Love,
-Me
Agreed. Dirty Colossus was easily the lamest and least memorable fight in Demon's Souls. Adjudicator at least had a cool design and some interesting moves.
"My favourite boss was the super easy one with the attacks that almost never come close to hitting you"
Maybe you should play a different game
@@xourbo8734 I like adjudicator because he looks cool as fuck
@@xourbo8734 I can't tell if you're in on the joke or seriously annoyed
@@silversnail1413 holy shit like I actually actually forgot about Dirty Colossus. So fair point
Guard Counters in Elden Ring was a really elegant way to encourage action with a shield that i used a great shield the whole game and it felt so much more kinetic than DS1 and ostensibly parries being a way to encourage action with a shield
Because you need to know what attacks are good to block counter, which you should not to avoid being punished, and which you should not try to block at all to conserve your stamina so that you can keep up the pressure.
Dark Souls 2 is objectively better due to the introduction of Tongue but Hole.
I totally agree, man.
Okay what's that?
RED Phoenix ingame messages
@@alizard7617 for what. I am really confused. Is that for a boss. Maybe Last Gaint?
RED Phoenix no as in the messages players leave on the ground
you know, after playing trough all of the 3 games just now, i enjoyed them all
Me too. I really wish the community would stop trying to rank them and pit them against each other all the time TBH.
@@mawichan exactly. I prefer ds1 by far but I don't care if others don't share my opinion and all of the games can co exist. If people stoped trying to say why their favorite is better than my favoriteI wouldn't feel so required to say why their favorite game is bad
@@finn488 I agree, who cares about another's opinion, for instance, I enjoyed ds1 the least, but I KNOW it is a better game than What I think it is. (Which is still a decent game)
After sinking at least 40 hours into every game(yet to finish 3 and 2) I can say that they are all equally good and share many issues as well the souls franchise is and should be known as a flawed masterpiece.
@@gecho5427 "they are all equally good" No, please stop, DS2 is objectivley worst game in the series. If you enjoy it that's fine just don't pretend that it's as well made as the rest of the series.
"Let's say there was no healing at all"
As someone who missed the Estus Flask in DS1 I can imagine that quite easily.
How is that possible? you need to get it to get the key to progress :/
@@fernandofaria2872 I don't think so. I only got it on my second visit to the Asylum, after I talked to a friend how ridiculous it was that only Humanity could heal you, and he pointed the Estus Flask out. Had to google how to do that though
@@staudinga it is a glitch that happens if you miss some important stuff but I don´t think you can get them if you visit the asylum again, you just lose the estus forever
@@QwertyUiop-bs2zr Maybe I remember it wrong and I actually restarted my game from the beginning, but I'm pretty sure I got the Estus Flask on the second visit to the Asylum that playthrough.
@@bradleyhandsonjoehallschro5419 that I definitely didn't. You guys almost want to make me reinstall to check. ^^
Tommy Tallarico spent 5 years creating this game
His mother is very proud
He was the first American to ever be hired by Fromsoft
This is my new favorite hbomberguy meme
@@franklinbadge1215most underared comment comment in youtube history
NO, IT WAS JOEY. IT'S ALWAYS JOEY!
"In Defense of In Defense of Dark Souls 2" when, Harris?
When dark souls 2 stops being a dead game
Never, because DS2 is a trash game.
@@simpletonapollo9723 tell me about it. You know, it had so many cool ideas, but got so lost because of how incompetant the team who made it was. It could have been great, but it was not good, and I feel really bad.
@@simpletonapollo9723 And yet I still go back to play it more than dark souls 1, despite it's numerous problems. There's just something very charming and fun about it that the first game doesn't hit for me
@@nozomashii821 Whether DS2 is good or bad is purely subjective and those who preach about how bad it was are either trolling or are trying to shove their opinions down people's throat's. I for one enjoyed DS3 the most purely because mechanically it was the most responsive and fun, whereas DS2 hit me with interesting areas, ideas, fun PvP and the best NG on them all. DS on the other hand, was the last game I played and frankly, aside from some feels, it did not feel all that fun or interesting. Perhaps it was because I played in a different order? I would rank BB - DS3 - DS2 - DS from best to worst. Am I wrong? No. Are others who say DS2 is the worst? No. It's all subjective and there is no point in arguement.
Drinking estus in combat is viable. All you do is either bait an attack or run for a bit. It helps to get your agility up.
It's a little bit like the concept of "turns" in the fighting game genre (which iirc Miyazaki has confirmed were an influence on the Souls formula.) Of course it's not the same as an actual turnbased game where turns are enforced explicitly, but implicitly the concept is there; the point is that if you want to heal, you need to use a "turn" that you otherwise could have used to attack, reposition etc. It's not that you can't drink estus in combat, it's that to do so, you need to use time and space that you could have used offensively, and if your enemy manages to put you in a position where you're always needing to use your turns to heal, then you're on your way back to the bonfire.
Anyway just throwing in my two cents, I think it's an interesting aspect of the game design.
@@blazaybla22 yea I agree, I recently started play DS2 for the first time and I thought I would have a bigger problem with the time to heal like most other people did but it turns out im doing just fine, fine enough to not really upgrade adp as much as I thought I would. Mostly cause of what you said, most bosses and enemies have an attack animation that you can dodge out of, once dodged, you have about two or 3 seconds of the enemy just standing/walking/looking/regaining stance and so on. I use that time to heal immediately after I dodge even if I'm still next to the enemy(doing this with some enemies can be risky) but it works most of the time.
I think it's just in comparison to 1 where you can absolutely quickdrink and tank a hit at the same time and come out ahead
which is fun in its own way but it's nice to see the formula varied
Better than DS3's Estus usage, where you basically punch yourself in the face due to how fast the effect takes place.
@@Battleguild You still need discipline for DS3 healing, you know. You can move while estusing, but not much, and it still takes a long time considering the speed that DS3 enemies attack. If they added DS2 estus into DS3, that game would be a shitshow.
Watching this now, in 2022, all I can think is how much hbomberguy must *love* Elden Ring.
Lol
You'll have to wait a decade and a half for the video though. We're still waiting for the ds3 vid and ds3 came out 7 years ago.
@@fuucaran7 YEARS AGO? 2016 WAS 7 YEARS AGO? damn...
@@thedarkroom6416is this lol because you also believe elden ring to be kinda mid? Like it's super accessible but......
@@hybridpheonix6343probably more because hbomb can take a while between uploads and also he doesn't like shields in previous games, whereas Elden Ring caters to them in a number of ways.
The hidey knights getting up and going for you works even if scholar is your first taste of 2. They wait until you're just used to them not getting up before they start getting up.
Scholar is the only way I ever played 2, And I loved it
This video is more controversial than a marxist video essay.
thats because it talks about things that actually matter!!!1
"in his opinion"
@@Jacob-zk1jy You've got that backwards! Dark Souls II _is_ the key to world peace, we just need to see the Emerald Heralds feet.
@Charles Wetherspoon damn that’s crazy tell me more
@Charles Wetherspoon beep boop beep beep
Would it be fair to say the tight tracking in DS2 is bad as an aesthetic/telegraphing concern? Like, in the DS1 Capra Demon example, the tracking loosens as he winds up, but then he snaps to you using a believable animation shift with convincing inertia. When turtle knight in DS2 tracks you, his feet literally swivel in place as if he's standing on a spinning disc, the entire time he lifts his weapon over his head. I don't mind that I can't just "walk out of the way" of attacks anymore, but, for example, if the knight continued to face his torso in the wrong direction, but turned his head towards me and one-hand dropped the club on me, I wouldn't feel nearly as incredulous about it.
A lot of the large beasts in Bloodborne do exactly this, and I think the Dancer of the Boreal Valley fight in DS3 is a spectacular example of what I'm talking about--her tracking is insane, but her movements are always believable.
not to mention the pursuer who's curse attack that turns you hollow even if you dodge will sometimes just teleport you on to the attack even if your character is no where near the tip of the blade, or how the hippo ogres sometimes still grab you after what feels like a proper dodge.
I played the first dark souls purely by dodging and attacking, i never parried or used shields so it was bizarre to see him talk about rolling in dark souls 2 when it feels like that was actually gutted compared to the first game since unless you get a certain amount of agility your block feels as slow, clunky, and as useless as it does in the first game with really heavy armor. He also talked about how shields are garbage and my first thought was "i felt like i needed a shield in dark souls 2" due to the way rolling felt. Granted i eventually built enough agility to feel a difference but even then it sometimes still feels clunky and some attacks hit you when they feel like they shouldnt.
@@is0lated I felt the same way tbh. I just played DS1 and followed immediately into DS2 and man the physical mechanics, hitboxes, and hurtboxes made the game feel incredibly clunky at times. My biggest problem with parts of this video are that he tends to just make things overly biased with what he thinks are "good game design". He seems to value novelty or a differing uniqueness for something that equates to inherent value. Like...World design is so jacked up in DS2 and doesnt make sense, yet he tries to argue that that should just be overlooked because it's...chaotic and cool? Like, why tf should that argument hold real weight? Sure, the individual worlds are cool in asthetics, but the world as a whole just doesn't make sense or feel real, whereas DS1 felt tangible and grounded. Why should that be scoffed at for a point of better game design?
@@Azureflame20 yeah it's a weird argument to make, i mean if you like it... Cool! That's great! However he continuously tries to bring down the first game because it doesn't fit with this weird and arbitrary standard. If the whole video was like "oh yeah I think dark souls 2 is cool" instead of "here's why YOU should like ds2" i'd honestly have no problem.
@@Azureflame20 I agree on the world design being confusing, but It DOES fit in the style, The world is literally collapsing, and the devs had that in mind because, that must be HARD to program two places in one place yet only one takes effect.
However the hitbox issues are annoying in general, but good specifically. You can sometimes hit the ground instead of damaging your opponent (while still hitting your opponent,) But you can learn enough about your opponent to make them miss attacks without you dodging. (Easiest the Old Knights in Heide's Tower of Flame.)
"These fights are what the soulds games are vessels for."
I beat every single of the DS2 humanoid bosses by circle-strafing toward the shield side and whacking 'em on the butt. The problem isn't the monotony of designs, but rather that all the battle designs in DS2 are poorly executed.
There is also no precedent for saying that this is the "ideal" Dark Souls fight. If DeS is to be seen as the prototype of the Souls games, then this is the exact opposite of the ideal, since the typical fight in DeS was against larger than life monsters. And that is honestly what I prefer to see in a Souls game. I want to battle horrendously large ancient demons for the most part.
I mean, not saying you are wrong for preferring this, but it seems you are stretching "I prefer this" into "this is what the games are all about."
SlimeQueenSupreme You can't just circle strafe around their shields.
In, fact Boss have a move specifically for that kind of attack.
I won't say I never had to dodge or block, but once I figured out this strategy in the Pursuer fight and noticed that an abundant amount of attacks of the boss just hit empty air and the few attacks that had a chance of hitting me were heavily telegraphed or just not very disruptive, I tried the same tactic on any other boss that was a humanoid and found that it trivialized a lot of battles. When I entered the looking glass knight's boss room, I went in thinking "oh, this guy will be a pushover." And I was right! I was disappointed because one-on-one batttles against humanoid enemies in DS1 were really intense and my heart rate goes up still when I replay those battles.
SlimeQueenSupreme .There is no logical reason your strategy wouldn't work on non-human enemies either.
Especially considering their attacks are even more telegraphed.
Non-human enemies tend to have claws which do not favor a dominant side, they are usually larger and therefore more difficult to get around, and they often have tails or hind claws to cover their backs. That does not necessarily mean that humanoid enemies can't have ways of dealing with this strategy, but there are some elements in their design that lend themselves more to having this strategy work of designers don't take this approach into account. This strategy just worked less welll against non-human enemies in DS2, and I usually had to do at least some work figuring out the best position to attack from while still being able to dodge attacks.
SlimeQueenSupreme Most human enemies in DS2 do have such counter measure. Most of them being very effective.
The section where you talk about monster hunter's lack of lock in is really funny because it does have one. It just is, as you put it, used sparingly. It doesn't just put your camera on the target, it just makes it so when you press the "center camera" button it goes to the monster without tracking it. Really useful designed such that you're encouraged to use the camera as well.
Have you played older monster hunters? I’ve only played rise but I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression it was a somewhat new thing in the series, that’s what someone said
@@sams7068 I've been playing since 3 Ultimate which I think came out over ten years ago. That game also had the same lock on feature if I'm not mistaken. I think in those games how you pick which monster you're targeting is a little different (instead of using L3 you use the 3DS touch screen). I don't think those games would be playable without the lock on since the 3DS doesn't have a second stick to control the camera.
Its ben sence i was a kid but I belive mh1 had it to lock on then hit a button to recenter on the monster I could be wrong thou my memory is a little hazie I do remeber you attacked with the right analog stick
@@Spark31Gaming Its funny, because 3 Ultimate is the game that introduced the lock-on feature. Before that they didn't have lock-on, only having the ability to recenter your camera towards where you're facing.
Before this the psp game had camera controls on the D-pad, which was god awful, but useable. I can't remember the PS2 games, but i think it was the same, with the right stick swinging your weapon, and not moving the camera, that being left to one of the shoulder buttons recentering the camera.
Didn't always have a lock-on, and it was a big adjustment for me.
the falconer armor doesn't let you have a falcon companion 0/100
But the SHOES are ASYMMETRIC....... 2/100
Yo I paid 40 bucks for a game that doesn't let me have a falcon companion! 0/10 bruh, give me my birb
That would have been sweet or the rapid arrow bow would have been cool o3o
47:54 "You can't even do a riposte if you're two handing in DS1" but you can tho, your timing was just off.
You can riposte but not parry. You have to be 1-handed to parry.
Yes, but hbomb specifically said that you can't riposte if you're 2-handing which is just plain wrong.
Also I like how hbomb praised DS2 for it's parrying system while bashing DS1 but forgot to mention that parrying in DS2 is so inconsistent that even the most hardcore players have trouble parrying even the most basic enemies.
Just look at the parry window in DS2, it's not only slow with a short wind-up time and a LONG recovery time after the parry window but it also dramatically changes from shield to shield - how are you supposed to learn the parry timings at all when they are so inconsistent?
That's like trying to learn trying to learn how to dodge attacks by rolling but every once in a while your roll gets a different amount of s and moves them around... OH WAIT DS2 DOES THAT TOO
Here's a graph of the parry windows: darksouls2.wiki.fextralife.com/file/Dark-Souls-2/ParryWindowDKS2.png
Dark souls parries are instant (in fact they are very similar to Bloodborne, except there there's a short bullet travel time, but from a close range these parries are also instant), they have no wind-up at all, you start with 6-8 active frames followed by 16-20 frames of recovery. But since there's no variable wind-up time before the active frames you can parry really consistently with any shield.
Patryk567 Parrying in DS2 was not "inconsistent" at all :/
+Patryk567 Oh man after reading the words "monastery scimitar" in that link I just got a wave of pvp disgust. dual avelyn, santiers spear, mundane infusement, full havels, WotG, Soul memory, monastery scim backstep parries, waiting for your opponent to finish casting their fifth fucking buff every time a new duel starts. That was literally the most unfun i've ever had with a souls game's pvp even including DS1 where the connection was actual garbage and you had to play around it.
Kenneth K. A lot of things you're mentioning got patched pretty quickly :/
I'm 15 minutes into the video, enjoying it so far, had a small comment: I don't think people's issue with Dark Souls 2 was ever ACTUALLY about dudes in armor. Dark Souls 3 has more dudes in armor than DS2 and no one ever complains about that. I think it's more that the fights, although decent individually, have very similar mechanics and don't require you to actually learn new strategies for new bosses. Champion Gundyr and Dragonslayer Armor are like night and day, but if i hadn't played through DS2 as many times as I have I doubt I'd know the difference between Velstadt, the Pursuer, and Dragonrider.
Velszt that's the truth. dudes in armor was never a problem, boring boss fights were
At 30 minutes now. The Gutter, for as much hate as it gets, is the best-designed area in Dark Souls 2 by far and better than any area in Dark Souls 1 save Undead Burg and the Painted World. It's my favorite part of the game and I wish the rest of it had been held to the same standard of quality but I understand the game had a lot of development problems.
54 minutes now. It's true Vendrick has gone hollow but that's no different from the story of Dark Souls 1, the difference is that Dark Souls 1 was more subtle. Throughout the game you're hearing stories of the might Gwyn, Lord of Sunlight, but you finally meet him and he's a crazed hollow, unable to even speak to you: no longer the Lord of Sunlight, but the Lord of Cinder. You've been manipulated into going to kill him by Frampt and Gwyndolin and Velka, who want to extend the Age of Fire to keep their power. Ultimately, you burn yourself alive in the Kiln, not even realizing the fate that has befallen you. I don't think this story criticism you're making is fair.
Totally agree. I quite enjoy bosses like Vorrken from W101 or Black Knight from Shovel Knight. They're literally the same, your rivals, and appear multiple times. But the big difference is that they change, and pretty much no boss in DS2 felt unique to me. Either they're dudes in armor with samey combos, have a bunch of smaller enemies/helpers for some reason, or plain repeats.
Both Gwyn and Vendrick went Hollow, but that carries different weight when the entire story of the game is about you going Hollow. In DS1, Gwyn went Hollow, and that was just a vaguely-tragic Thing That Happened. In DS2, Vendrick went Hollow, and given that the entire game is about going Hollow and losing your memories, and how little everything matters because everything is going to repeat, it ends up meaning a whole lot more. DS1 makes Gwyn going Hollow tragic because he was Great (not as in good, but just in terms of having a large effect on the world) and this is him being brought low. Vendrick going Hollow is (imo) much more tragic because it reflects the sorry state of the world- he was the closest to great there was at his time, but he was really just re-treading well-traveled ground and ultimately he, and Drangleic, and the player, means absolutely nothing.
i think his take on lifegems is kinda strange. there are plenty of bossfights that you can use lifegems as your main heal for due to how quickly you move whilst using them, that speed allowing you to dodge attacks to make a healing window
U talk Like u can run while using a gem.
Its still slow act, still slow healing, and u walk.
@@AtreyusNinja that walking is more than enough to make windows by dodging certain attacks. if you struggle with doing that its not my fault
@@rat9041 i was not complaining At all, saying gems > estus is Just right, but the way u Said that was like insinuation that gems are actually the best way of healing ever.
I play since day 1 vanilla preorder Edition, i dont have to use any healing At all.
@@AtreyusNinja lifegems are significantly better than estus in most scenarios though
I think estus is better if you know how to use it. The only bossfight I used lifegems as my main source of healing was Dukes Dear Freja, and I only did that because I spent all my estus in Brightstone Cove Tseldora.
They are good but they require you to not get hit after using them because they heal so slow. Estus is much faster and not too hard to use when you are only fighting 1 enemy.
I'm really surprised he didn't go more into the stances, which opened the door for customizing your build and how you want to fight. You can dual wield the iron greatsword. Dual wield. The mighty chungus. And it's an actual move set, not just swinging one then following up with the other.
Its always the same boring animation
Because this video isn't a defense for DS2. Is just saying that the other games are worse
@@kingdddinner2627 This, and he also does this by building faulted strawman arguments.
"You listen to a random knight's stupid family story, ring 2 bells, listen to 2 serpents say king good or king bad and then open a big door". They all tell you to meet the king. Just like in DS2. And just like in DS2, the king is now decrepit and hollow. Nothing revolutionary, just sadder in DS2 (which is a great thing). But the story isn't more dynamic than DS1's. The world is already dead in DS2 all the same, the only two living pieces of the chess game are Nashandra and the Emerald Herald.
Also, "oh DS2 encourages rolling while DS1 doesn't". What the fuck is he talking about? Nothing tells you agility is the way to have more roll I-Frames, so you don't roll at the start because of how awful rolling is. Also, if you don't want to just be a sack of fragile shit for 3 bosses while investing into Adaptability, you'll have to be forced not to dodge for a while through the game. Bruh. If that doesn't make players shy away from rolling Idk what does.
@@ambralemon The standard roll is good enough, I don't know why people complain about ADP when it isn't even necessary. I don't remember how many points I put into it, but considering I was focusing on just increasing my attack power as much as I could, it couldn't have been a lot. Dual caestus, so I couldn't block any attacks. Try a fisting build. It's quite fun :)
@@demonicloaf2100 5 i-frames to start with compared to the...
9 frames for a fatroll
11 frames for a midroll
and 13 frames for a fastroll
This is the Dark Souls 2 of Hbomberguy videos.
I genuinly doubt that. DS2 was done by the B team. This video was done by the guy himself.
You mean it's bad?
@@c.b.5104 It obviously is. Saying otherwise would be a flat out lie.
@@c.b.5104 it is really bad
@@gymnopedieno.2925 Indeed
"there is no difficulty setting in dark souls 2"
Laughs in sorcerer
I looked all through the comments to find someone to say this. Thank you. I've found the one other person who understands.
sorceries make the game a bit of a joke in DS1 and DS3 as well tbh.
laughs in the DLC
Laughs in ADP
@@tonyramirez5707 I've never understood why people put so much worth in ADP, I've never put any points into it in any of my builds, can you explain it for me?
Monster hunter does have a lock on, it only ever allows you to lock on to big monsters and rather than sticking your camera to them perfectly it sets them as your camera reset position instead of right in front of you. That way you can quickly refocus but still able to maneuver the battlefield
The interconnectivity of DS1 makes it stand out to me imo, how it masterfully connects later levels to previous ones in creative, surprising ways makes it way more memorable and exciting. How there is no obvious path and how you continue to figure out how everything connects as you progress. I feel like this is lessened in the later souls games.. the mechanics/ bosses may be better but you lose a little magic when it is reduced/ streamlined to a less imaginative, more predictable level design of unlock elevator, go to bonfire, repeat..
As for the Abstract poetic significance, for me. the feelings you get when you enter the game and see the word 'undead asylum' pop out across the screen, meeting the dying knight with the soft cryptic voice, the pale column of light shining down on him in such a desolate place and you have no idea why you are here or how you ended up on a dead prison on the top of a mountain really strikes you in a way DS2 doesn't really live up to imo..
The problem with DS1's inter-connectivity is that it leads to a lot of backtracking and going through the same old areas again before you can warp. The payoff of looping back to where you just were and whatnot is cool, but considering the cost of that is a lot of tedious retreading of old ground I think it's more or less a wash. The ability to go to X Y and Z places in whatever order is similarly kinda cool but ultimately most people will just go the "intended" path or a slightly different one that skips some optional stuff on the vast majority of their runs.
HOWEVER, the somewhat recently released Daughters of Ash mod builds on the inter-connectivity and actually makes the game legitimately non-linear so you can go through it a number of different ways, with parts of the game actually changing based on what you go do first, making the choice of paths actually meaningful for once. It's also hard as nails so it'll challenge even seasoned Souls veterans. Highly recommended for anyone who's a major fan of the series, and the first game in particular, because it takes the interesting things about the first game to the extreme.
The inter-connectivity in Dark Souls is one of my favorite things about it and very impressive level design. It's like an open world game but more vertical than being long flat plains.
Alright, well we can talk about whether a directed or interconnected path is better or not, but if you are really worried about having an interconnected path just play Dark Souls 3. Not only does it do the directed path thing better than Dark Souls 2, but you will never have to worry your little head about not being able to warp ever again, as the game has a plethora of bonfires and even gives you an infinite homeward bone after you beat it. There you go, problem solved. I mean Dark Souls 2 is a fine game, but saying it is better than the other Soulsborne titles or that someone should start off with it as their first is a bit of a stretch.
Linda Niemkiewicz I didn’t mean Dark Souls 3 was interconnected, I was saying if you are worried about your game being interconnected then play Dark Souls 3, as in You won’t have to because Dark Souls 3 really isn’t interconnected. I was saying that Dark Souls 3 does the directed path approach better than Dark Souls 2 because you can actually tell where you came from and where you are going, giving the world some scale as opposed to being connected through world spanning elevators and caves.
The metroidvania-like design of the world made Dark Souls feel truly unique among other games of the time. It's rare to see a 3D game with such a concise and intricately overlapping world like the one Dark Souls 1 has. Being able to look down and see parts of the world you've weaved through is such a cool feeling and makes the exploration more satisfying. The common "backtracking" complaint was never an issue for me because going through old areas again meant more souls for levels and upgrades.
Dark Souls 1 doens't need to be bad for Dark souls 2 to be good.
so?
That's true
I think he's not so much talking about it being bad as much as taking it off its pedestal a little.
@@RAFMnBgaming
By proving he A.) doesn't know his own game, and B.) tearing it down despite being an objectively better game...
Dark Souls 1 was put a pedestal for a reason... Meanwhile Dark Souls 2 was mostly forgotten amongst the games for a reason as well.
@@lucebelmont You're missing what i'm saying. Just because DS1 is a great game, doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws that he thinks DS2 addresses in a satisfying way. That's the point here.
Im just going to add my 2 cents here. DS 1, 2 and 3 are all very different from each other. They each tell a different story that is linked by the first flame. The first flame is the only thing that links all 3 games. DS 1 you are fighting in the ruined realm of literal gods as for the fire is dying for the second time. There are monsters like the gaping dragon that the gods didnt slay before The Fading, which is why you encounter them in DS 1. Plus since its only the 2nd time its fading (first being when Gwyn linked it and screwed humanity into this cycle) there aren't several kingdoms that have fallen to be put into one place. DS straight up say that when the fire fades all land are brought to one place which is why DS 1 is so interconnected Because its only 1 kingdom. DS 2 you are in a world that might have had hundreds of kingdoms rise and fall, so if they are all brought to one place of course the layout wouldnt make sense as each kingdom would be thrown and twisted with all the others. As for the men in armor Bosses, if hundreds of kingdoms have come and gone then more than likely most (Like 90%) of all beasts and monster have been hunted and killed by now leaving only man with only a few of the smartest or most dangerous beasts left. Then DS 3 straight up acknowledges this with the first 2 boss. iudex gundyr is a dude in armor that transforms into a monstrous thing that was once a man, while Vordt was obviously once a knight of the Boreal Valley but has been reduced to more beast than man, which is why he howls and walks on all fours. Where DS 1 was interconnected and DS 2 was a mind trip, DS 3 in more like Zelda in the way that its a dungeon crawl. You work your way through a level and find 1 or 2 ways to go and more than likely you will finish one dungeon before moving onto the next. And i think DS 3 has the biggest acknowledgment of DS 2 at the end. When you are transported to the Kiln of the First Flame, that twist mass of building that couldn't possibly be in one place. That is how DS 2's map should be looked at.
As for gameplay, each one plays so different of the others. You can't take the same strat from DS 1 and play that way through DS 2 and 3 or BB for that matter and get the same results and it works that way for each game. If i wanted that i'd just play every CoD game thats come out in the last 10 years. We should look at the differences and be grateful that they are all so different instead of complaining that its not the same. Each SoulsBourne game feels and is worth the money because you aren't just getting DS 1 over and over and over again. Instead we get 3 different, beautiful and glorious games that have given us deep, dark worlds to explore, a community of people that came together to piece the stories together and a higher expectation from game companies to put in even a fraction of the effort that was put into these game.
So to finish off I love each and everyone of these games and the community it has built, its just heartbreaking to see so many people hate on something just because it was different.
Do we really want to keep linking the fire and just having the same thing happen, or do we let the fire fade and usher in something new?
Good.
this take is gud
@@KGLordofhollows Absolute BEAST of a comment, somebody has to be straight up delusional to argue with this
@@KGLordofhollows you know that every dark souls is a different timeline? So you could have just not write that comment sorry to say and dark souls 2 never tried to tell us the story of the first flame the curse is much more the thing the question, is the curse rly that bad is the circle rly worth it, you get this y the ringed city dlc from dark souls 3 asks the same question is the dark/curse rly that bad? Also your Ästhetik Statements about dark souls 2 I see you don't know the lore about the game so pls be quiet about it, the horse is there to trample the cursed over and over again, the purseurer is there to hunt the undead/cursed so it makes sense that he pops up (he should pop up more often but I guess that's by design), the Dragonrider are the elite fighters of the King I don't get that point. You see you mistook something as well, maybe I'll find more. Calling it bad world design? That is a hard question some say yes some say no, just bcs you don't get the point it's not the world's designs fault, don't come with it to find the story is the design of all souls games if you blame that pls blame all dark souls than.
@@KGLordofhollows explain me, how is it possible that we only get one soul from ornstein and smough? Why does ornsteins amor lies at the dragon peak when he is dead? or did you forget about? the world in ds2 makes sense, there are much more "mistakes" in DS1 and 3, if it is only one timeline how did irithyl get under anor londo? much things make no sense in all games. Also the point with seeing things you can see things in DS2 not as much as in the other two games but that doesn't make a bad world building. That things are out of place? that is not so easy to say mate, you think that it is I think it is not, ony the creator of the world can truly say and I'm sure they did not say about it. The dragon rider are there to protect key positions, the throne room again to hold of nashandra sitting there right next so that she can't easily procced, the one in heide tower, well I have no good answer for that one and the last one you found the answer already, the horse in the castle? you realise that it could also be used as a guard? The purseurer is not hostile gainst the others because of their clothing carrying the symbol of drangleic and he regognises it, or maybe is also cursed ever considered that? and he just wants to hunt ya down for his own good? I am sure you will call all of this nonsense bcs you are alr in the state of not trying to give it a go. If dark souls 1 would be hated that much and dark souls 2 would be praised that much you would pretty much do the same with dark souls 1 you wouldn't give it a chance and yes the story is about the curse the four great souls must be there for the cycle, but as I said the question is "why do we continue the cycle for what cause?", so they must be there ofc, also when we sit on the throne do we link the flame or do we let the flame fade? you can't say that in this ending bcs the end is only the emerald herald saying "what the future brings only you know...", credits role, the other end is also no choice we make in the other games, we try to find a different way, bcs we admit that the cycle is not good and that our journey is almost useless bcs another one will come and finish what we started, dark souls 2 is almost teaching you that it is almost hopeless to escape the cycle, that humanity is trapped uppon gwyns curse (you heared right gwyns curse). Those endings are much more interesting than all other but that is subjective as the world design. Also I find it kinda shitty that in the ringed city we just meet another of gwyns children, idc what you think but that is lazy design popping another child of gwyn out of nowhere.
Completely unrelated to the video but I absolutely love how, at 47:56, you can practically see the excitement Hbomb has at getting lucky enough to roll a black knight sword as he immediately goes to equip it
"Humanity is a rare resource in dark souls 1" Laughs in darkwraith
Laughs in the depths.
omg its like he never played the DLC its not like theirs an enemy that's literally humanity
Laughs in small mountain of rat corpses.
Laughs in fire keeper soul duplication glitch.
Laughs in the knowledge of pressing B
I agree with the appeal of “honorable duel” type fights, but I disagree that they are inherently better than fights with larger, stronger enemies. One of the big appeals of ds1 was the scale of these bosses. The scale combined with difficulty gave the feeling of you, playing as a small, undead warrior, fighting your way through gods, dragons, and demons against all odds. Personally, I found this concept as one of the things that made me want to play the games. I think both styles of boss have their place.
What were you doing with unupgraded estus at O&S
So he can use it as 'evidence that DS1 is bad'
@@TheLawliet10 you should have a +3 by that point in the game it's unexcusable
He is a casul
@@ms06fzakuii26 It's honestly just unpreparedness at that point
Maybe for the challenge?
I was not particularly good at analysing the media I consume at the time I played DkS2, but despite that, it struck me then how many ways the game outright tells you that it can't be DkS1. So many item descriptions for example make reference to trying to recapture the glory of a bygone age, or just being a pale imitation of the original. How did people not see that
The game sucks so it's not very endearing to notice those things when the whole product is rubbish overall
@@LEANxGOBLIN lmao
That point is all well and good, but falls somewhat flat in hindsight. While for the purposes of a video essay breaking down the story elements and themes, that's fine. But when playing the game it just feels way worse to actually do anything in 2 than 1. So the reaction to those item descriptions just make it feel like they made a worse game on purpose. Especially considering that DS3 pretty well recaptured how DS1 felt to play. (Obviously it's much faster than 1 but the feel is much closer)
@@gordonslamsay8074 nah. I enjoyed the game on its own merits, noticed these aspects while I was playing, and thought, "Hah, neat that they're drawing attention to how this game is, and has to be, different."
@ fair enough, to each their own and all that. Personally though, with the critical mass of design choices that just feel worse to me and the fact that 2 is very much the odd one out in terms of game feel, I'm less inclined to enjoy those nods.
"I like having friends" *shows npc summon*
Are you saying lucatiel Isn't my friend?
@@evilpub damn now i feel bad
He was talking about the NPCs though?
Like Solarie is your friend.
I mean, maybe he had no video recorded with friends on his oc and he rushed an entire run recording it for the video?
Some ppl think utubers are Magic creature able to do everything in this world :).
Srsly Your comment is a bit dumb :'D
And also, whats wrong with npc lol
video games friend simulator
Dark Souls II lets me play a character who's left handed by using the Falchion and that makes me happy. I saw I could use it in my let hand for normal swing, said that she was predominantly left handed, and she went through with a sword in the left hand, a staff in the right, and enough Soul Arrows to make a LMG feel insecure about it's magazine size.
you couldnt backstab or riposte with your left hand though which sucked
there's a weapon in the second DLC that gets a unique moveset when wielded in the left hand!
@Sean it i think also deals more damage when using it with the left hand
@Sean doesn't even need to be two copies just another great sword works with it.
"to make an LMG feel insecure about its magazine size" is the best expression I've heard all week. :D
Yes he makes fair points but it bothers me how he can critique the run up to artorias as being hard and long and that’s bad. But at around 42 mins he is talking about shrine of Armana and how the long and hard run up is fine because it’s late in the game and the game is supposed to be hard. It’s the same point but used differently for the two
Yea there are a ton of inconsistencies in this.
According to him healing items in Demon Souls were making the game worse but then described the same system as 'genius' in DS2.
He should just say he prefers DS2 because instead of trying to argue that all other Dark Souls games are actually bad and "you're playing the game wrong".
It's kind of like trying to argue "The Han Solo movie was objectivly the best Star Wars movie because it didn't have any Jedi in it".
I think Amana's is actually different, there are only 3 enemies who spot you if you just run straight to the elevator for the Artorias fight, and you don't need to kill them. Doesn't change how Lud and Zallen has such a long runback, and he just ignored it entirely.
Amana is clearly designed to encourage using a bow but yes, the video is absolute trash and inconsistent garbage.
@@gu3z185 5, but only 3 will follow you
@@allbottledup9513 That's interesting
4:17 - "A lot of early players die while mashing the heal button. That's not fun."
This argument confuses me. Of course a lot of new players die while mashing the heal button, they also die while mashing the dodge and attack buttons. A lot of new players die walking off cliffs. Is any of it fun? No, of course not, dying isn't fun. Dying was never meant to be fun. Dying is meant to teach you a lesson, in this case that you tried to heal when you didn't have the space for it. Healing in souls games has always been about picking your moment very carefully, being rewarded for picking the right moment and getting punished when you didn't.
Bearing in mind I haven't played a souls game so I have no idea if this is the actual experience of it or not, but I think the point Hbomb is making here is that there are fun ways to die or lose, and that's more emotional than logical. If you lose because you didn't dodge correctly or you attacked at the wrong time, that might feel like a satisfying way to lose, you made a mistake, one you can get better at and learn from. Logically yes the same applies to healing, but I can see it being the case that emotionally it's just not a fun way to die, it feels more like you being bad, rather than the enemy being better than you.
To take an example I am familiar with, in a game of Warhammer 40k, if I lose because I played the best I could, made a few mistakes and lost because they were just better than me, that's a fun way to lose. If I lost because my dice kept rolling 1's every time I try to cast a psychic power, that feels like a bad way to lose which isn't fun. It's not exactly the same situation, but I just wanted to illustrate the point that not all ways to lose are equal, and good game design can involve minimising players losing in ways that aren't fun, while allowing them to lose in ways that are.
@@alexrandell5559 the issue with that comparison is that one of those is on you as a player, and the other is just RNG. Dying while healing is on you as a player. It's not RNG based.
Making mistakes and being smacked for it is a perfectly reasonable thing. And it serves to reinforce that you as a player need to improve.
@alexrandell5559 "I have absolutely no bloody idea what I'm talking about but let me give you a long winded explanation as to why I think you're wrong anyway"
@@felixfischer6168 hes still objectively right tho, playing these games you learn when to heal, its not whenever you want
I would love to see an update or retrospective from Hbomb on this game. Be interesting to see what a fresh take from him would be considering how much better his video game analysis has gotten in the last 5 years.
May the weirdly myopic section about shields being an inferior way of playing be culled
holy shit, I can't believe you actually missed the bonfire next to quelaag in Blighttown.
what are you talking about? how the hell can you know the first time if the illusionary door was there? plus there is a bonfire in the entrance of the demon... place (wow cant believe i forgot the name) so you wont start looking for secrets in that room.
BloodyDIMISIS55 not that one. The one next to the sewer before quelaag
Tbh if you don't explore in dark souls you're gonna suffer, and that suffering is kinda well deserved.
Sum up in this video in 2 seconds or less: "get gud"
+BloodyDIMISIS55 lol the only reason i realised that that was an illusory wall was that i felt the level was missing something and the texture was a bit repetitive on that exact wall soooo hit it and booom bonfire.
15 minutes in, listening to hbombs arguments about healing items and fighting enemies on the same footing as you, and I wonder how much he must have loved Sekiro
@Banuner sekiro imo is top 3 best souls like game.
1) Bloodborne
2) Dark Souls 2
3) Sekiro
Selvin Fernandez I wish I could have enjoyed Sekiro. It’s the only souls game I walked away from, wasn’t difficulty, but the lack of visual feed back, I got mental health issues, numbers, math, all that stuff tickles my brain, and when I hit someone and see numbers it assures me that I’ve done something.
Sekiro lacked that feedback, so I felt lost the whole game, I made it to the owl before I just set the game down and gave up. It was to stressing to lack that feed back, gave me anxiety.
@@arutemisemtrai9769 There might be a mod for that. I learned the feedback as the big sparkling cloud that shows up when you deflect, and the higher pitch sound it made. But I must have played through twice before I actually started to get a hang on the system. Slow learner I guess
@@arutemisemtrai9769 dude for me what was really grinding my nutsack into a fine powder was saint isshin and shinobi owl. Fuck those two bosses, only time I've ever had to cheese a boss ever
@@steltzsm Owl was rough but the issue again was just a lack of fun. Games like Dark souls, Bloodborne, and now the Nioh series have a spot in my brain that just works, learning the patterns and stuff is easy, but the numerical feed back and number crunching was the fun bit for me.
Investing time and thought and seeing a return was the biggest part for me, striking an enemy and going from 128 on a backstab and like 256 on a reposte to dealing over 1,000 damage later on, the visual section of it showed me progress. And not just that, but finding ways to legitimately early game break stuff, min/maxing I think the term is. That also really contributed to my fun factor.
Sekiro gutted all that, to me its just 3-D castlevania, yeah I can fight the bosses, and base enemies, but without that exact feedback, I find myself needing to take mental breaks from the game. It wasn't worth the stress.
Man, you really should have talked about ADP. My first playthrough I knew nothing about it and had a terrible time, but my second time I did and took advantage of the stat. For all the talk you do about how a game teaches you, it's conspicuous that you don't mention this flaw in the design of the game.
He tip tows over all the flaws of the games to make a shitty point and takes points from others out of content or cuts their points to make them seem worse to build himself up
@@chipbutty3645 how abt giving specifc examples?
@@kys1453 ADP, hitboxes, bad movement in Scholar, needless emphasis on difficulty resulting in it being unfair, some of the shittest bosses in the series, etc
@@kys1453 He does this the entire video.
@@kys1453 If you watch Matthewmatosis' vid, you'll see his points are misrepresented here
The game apparently wants to teach you to fight without a shield and rely on dodging and rolling, but then gives you extremely low iFrames during rolls, unless you built up the Adaptability stat quite a lot, and then doesn't tell you that...
aliquidcow Yeah. This video is only opinion and then occasional out of context nitpicking of Matthew's video.
I do have to agree though that the example with the 2 dragon riders is a bit pathetic on Matthew as you can just lower the music volume a bit and hear the bow reloading absolutely fine.
@@QuackerHead-j It always feels like a bad tactic to take one particular person's argument and pick it apart as if it shows that the viewpoint as a whole is wrong. Like Matthew may very well be making bad points about why DS2 sucks, but that doesn't mean that DS2 doesn't suck.
@@QuackerHead-j so it was designed poorly and you have to fix it? Matthews point is still very valid then
@@KingKongsFingers Then again he didn't know when he pulled off a succesful bunnyhop in Devil Daggers because the ocvious sound que and fov shift was apparently too hard to make out when the screen became cluttered.
To be fair, if you develop the ability to dodge with DS2 shitty starting i-frames, you'll be able to dodge damn well anything with the proper i-frames. During my first run through DS2, I didn't even know what Agility/Adaptability were and just thought that the dodge in DS2 was garbage by default, but I stuck with it and when I got to DS3 I was basically invincible.
you start by saying that herald is a best waifu than gwynevere, but fail to acknowledge the true best waifu
Crossbreed Priscila
Dude...
Ornifex.
Solaire
I think you mean Gwyndolin
No, the best waifu is the doll
@@Hopper_Arts I find it funny that you can't remember their name.
shocked that you think ds1s map design requiring a lot of back tracking is bad. Personally my favorite game in the bunch due to the map design.
My sentiments exactly despite Bloodborne being my favorite game in the series Dark Souls 1 is my favorite with how the world was put together.
it's a terrible opinion and he should go to jail
I never got the "backtracking is bad" criticism. Why is it bad? It just is okay?! *disregards the entire metroidvania genre*
@@t.d.3803 Because it's annoying
@@darragholeary8653 imo in dark souls 1 specifically it was really fun plotting out my journeys and weighing out the pros and cons of setting out to get something. i.e. i got cursed in the depths, so do i spend 6000 souls getting the purging stone from the sewer lady, or make the risk of trekking all the way to the top of undead parish to get it from oswald in order to get it for half the price
I think the lock on actually works well for multiple enemies you cna flick between them to switch your view faster then click off to attack in a different direction
Yes! Exactly! Finally someone gets it! It’s not one or the other, it’s about skill and what you like to do. The “focus on one enemy” button can also be used to pick you targets of a horde that are more vulnerable. Like, if you’re being swamped by hollows, and one steps a bit more forward than the rest; you can focus on just them and pick them out of the pack.
I never criticized DS2 for its level design but I always liked the design of DS1 more. I loved the interconnectedness and the general aesthetic of it so much that I would often find myself walking between areas rather than warp all the time just so I could take it all in and enjoy it. I did this so much that when I replayed the game 5 or so years later, I could still remember how the areas connected and a lot of minor details about each area. I can see why people like the world of DS2 more but I was just so in love with the world of first game that it's still possibly my favorite game world I've had to traverse
I only got to play DS2 once because my save corrupted almost immediately after beating the game (no joke it was the same day) cut I do plan on revisiting DS2 and the dlc I never got to play and give it another chance. I hope I come to love it as much as I love the other games in the series
Just playing through DS1 for the first time, and I find myself doing the same thing. It takes the cake for world/level design even when compared to the newer ones, and I played DS3 and BB first. I found myself running from firelink through undead burg to the bell tower, and down through the depths to blighttown, even after I had the shortcuts unlocked, just because those areas are so amazingly well designed. I heard about DS1's interconnectedness being a strong point, but had no idea how true that is, even after being impressed by Bloodborne. I like DS2 ok so far, but it doesn't come anywhere close to the level of effort put into DS1 in this regard.
27:30 there is literally another bonfire that isn't a secret right next to Quelaag's domain in the great swamp that you're ignoring to make your point. You never have to go through blighttown again to make runs at Quelaag once you find her the first time, because the great swamp bonfire is a 90 second run from her.
It doesn't discredit his point regarding all the other connections the location has? Reaching much?
Dark Souls 1 is trash.
That bonfire are not warpable though makingnoises. For some reason dark souls 1 made it where you could only warp to specific bonfires once you gain access to the lordvessel. The closest remote bonfire location is the secret chaos covenant. (The next being the great hollow I think which is also a pretty elaborate secret) That catacombs also have this issue where you have to go pretty far into nito's domain before they finally give you a bonfire you can warp to.
It's also worth mentioning that the Daughter of Chaos bonfire was not a warp point at launch. That was changed in patch 1.06. Not so that you don't have to go back through blight town, but so Chaos covenant members would be able to warp to their covenant leader.
The9thMan99 but you can warp right to firelink. Once you've done blighttown once you never have to do it again.m, not even to make runs at quelaag and not even if you somehow left and came back. You just go straight from firelink to the bonfire by her via the elevator
You still technically have to go through blighttown again, but it's honestly a moot point basically because of what you described. Despite having to go through blighttown, it's not really a hassle to go through it using the shortcut. It would have been nicer if you could just warp to bonfire you want though but for whatever reason dark souls 1 doesn't do that.
Someone should use clips of this video and clips of his Bloodborne video to make a video of Hbomberguy debating himself.
Do you have any examples where he contradicts himself?
CMH he makes a joke about how broken pvp is in dark souls during his bloodborne video.
Then during this video he says pvp is fun in dark souls 2 because it’s fair, completely ignoring the fact that he himself said it was broken.
Mauler did so on his series "in response of dark souls 2"
@Roxion 358 It still doesnt make sense as to where is the Iron keep standing and how we cant see any sign of it from the outside
@Roxion 358 The problem of the game was the fact that it was pressed for time. They where going to do this whole thing with time travel and space warping wich would explain the elevator, the giant memories, and the dlc warps. As the game is though it just doesnt make sense. Sad because to me the game could have had the best story of the whole souls series
I've tried watching this video twice and I've always quit at 23:36 when hbomberguy accuses Matthewmatosis of incorrectly doging while showing Matthewmatosis correctly doging and still getting hit because he didn't level adaptability
Yea, it's a very disingenuous video. Matthew even talks about it in that clip and Harris conveniently leaves that out, just so he can call him bad.
"correctly dodging" is not dodging into the direction of the swing. Would he have rolled away from the boss or into the direction of the sword, he wouldn't have gotten hit. The pursuer is one of the few bosses that can be dodged with low agility.
So not a good dodge, even with a bit more agility, this would have been a hit.
@@Thomas.c4647what you failed to realize is that this isn't a "bad dodge", it's an example to showcase the issue that Matt is pointing out can happen because for attacks like these, you have to be conscious of your ADP level and s. He is showcasing that you can get hit midroll, then provides an example of how you would get hit midroll, then you're complaining that he isn't dodging in a way to not get hit midroll.
It's always interesting to me what aspects of a mechanic a critic is willing to believe are intentional, or at least meaningful, and what aspects they dismiss as "just bad design." This is an extremely minor example, but you sort of shrug off the fact that in DS1 you can't summon your friends as the game "not working." And of course, part of that is just playing the character of hbomberguy, man who makes the funnies on the interwebs. But I find the fact that you're almost always summoning a stranger to be quite meaningful in DS1 -- it's fitting with the eerie, ethereal quality of the game, for one thing, and the single-player-but-not-quite, bizarre nature of the multiplayer aspects, where it's simultaneously quite lonely and quite social. Here's this person who you've never met before, who you can't talk to directly and can only communicate with through crude sign language, but who's playing this crucial role in your particular quest and who you're sharing this one-of-a-kind, individualized experience with facing this boss. When you beat DS boss with a summon, it becomes the legend of how you and this one guy conquered this incredible challenge, and you feel this unique kinship with someone who you don't know at all and will probably never meet again. Very fitting with the game's themes of personalized, human-level hope in the face of globalized, world-level oppression and despair.
And of course, you're welcome not to find that meaningful. Art is subjective; that's the joy of criticism. But especially since a major thesis of this video is that people who complained about the multi-enemy encounters in DS2 just didn't understand what DS2 was going for, it's interesting to me the things that are dismissed as "just bad design" or "just better design," seemingly without warranting further explanation or proof, and which things deserve deconstruction and analysis. Obviously, you've only got so much time in this video that's already practically a treatise, and you naturally want to focus on the things that you particularly are interested in talking about. Totally fair and valid, that's how any sort of essay works, video or otherwise. It's just interesting to me that as video game criticism has evolved, and developed its own vocabulary and structures and theories and so on, there's more and more of an emphasis on digging deep into and dissecting the metaphor behind given mechanics, but it's simultaneously fine to just hand-wave certain things away as "the developers fucked this up." Who gets to pick what warrants deconstruction, and what warrants dismissal? I suppose in an ideal world everyone would have the time and attention for 43-hour-long videos about every solitary detail of a game, and we don't live in that ideal world. Again, fair enough. I just encourage all critics -- not just you, Hbomb, you're far from the worst offender here -- to think carefully and critically about what they hand-wave when they criticize others for hand-waving. Those who live in glass houses, yadda yadda yadda.
It doesn't really make sense in-universe, though. You can summon specific NPCs. It's very heavily implied that these NPCs are directing their summoning signs to your world, either because they just like helping people out in Solaire's case, or because they feel they have a debt to repay (most other NPCs). So it kindof breaks the universe's own rules that your friends can't do the same and specifically send their summon sign to your world.
I remember fighting Darkeater Midir and some player with no armor at all and a rapier completely owned Midir. He was literally the best summon I've ever had and I'll never see him again.
I don't know whether or right or not and I haven't played DS2 yet but I think this is the only remotely charitable critical comment I've seen on this video
Only thing is it wasn't interented to work like that in ds1 the system was shit
Is that you, Mauler?
Did you say it is impossible to riposte while 2-handing a weapon in DS1? Because that is incorrect.
Other than that the video is oscillating between stating "get good" and "appreciate it for what it is", while ignoring valid criticisms like level/map/world design.
@@__asher__So you're online insulting people who have played the game when you yourself haven't.... People tell you it's a bad game with fundamentally worse mechanics so you take it as an endorsement to purchase the game. Alright, enjoy wasting your money.
@@__asher__ Watch a video by Mauler if you want evidence
im pretty sure he meant parry.
Jesus what was wrong with my spelling?
@@ThisisKyle
MauLer, the guy who doesn't understand the difference between Objective and Subjective and makes needlessly long videos? No thanks 😂 been there done that and not happening again 😄
I know I'm 3 years late but I'm only binging this guy now for the quarantine.
I'm here to leave a message for those who will be watching even later, and maybe don't know this.
47:52 has a small mistake:
You absolutely can risposte while twohanding in DS1, you just have to be quick about it. Don't let your dreams be dreams, go and be the best Giant Dad you can be!
In my experience, it isn't a speed thing. I think From Soft must have messed up the timing window to where it is extremely small. That's why you see speedrunners and the like time there input at a specific point . I tried it quickly at first but only got a normal attack, then i tried at a different point in the animation, and now i get it every time.
hbomber guy is wrong a lot and routinely treats his opinion as fact.
Like how he says shields in Souls games are objectively unfun.
@@ArvelDreth Certainly not objectively but you don't get the feeling that the adrenaline rush that you get from Dark Souls is more prevalent when you ditch the shield?
@@ArvelDreth he doesn't say that, he also clearly states it's his own way of seeing the game, pay more attention next time...ffs
As someone whos favorite soulsborne game is Demon's Souls, i love Dark Souls 2. I think this video is, to a fairly large extent, ignorant and dismissive of many of the complaints people have about it, but it IS a great game and one i enjoy playing. I just dont like when people who defend it over correct and start pretending like its issues...arent issues lol
You criticise DS1 for the world being build in this interconnected way. But honestly, this was like the biggest selling point in Dark Souls to me. Traversing the DS1 world is the coolest shit I've ever had in gaming as the world starts to open up to you. You walk around this place and you turn a corner and suddenly it is completely different, but you go through it and "HOLY SHIT I'M BACK HERE"
He is not saying that the interconnected is wrong. He is saying that the mob positioning is off If you are going from B to C instead of A to B in the same area.
@@MarkVonBaldi The example he used makes no sense anyway. There's a key to a door that leads back to Firelink and by extension New Londo and the Undead Parish, just take the water wheel up from Blighttown. There's no reason to go back the way you came, especially because Domhnall moves back up by Firelink anyways. The only area that I didn't enjoy traversing was Darkroot Basin, purely because the bonfire wasn't warpable, which is a common issue with the rest of the game.
@@MarkVonBaldi Also, he said that because you had NO CHOICE of going back the way you came in DS2, it was superior, where DS1 gave you the option to go back the way you came, even if there's no reason for it... seems like a non issue to me, even though I understand the ABC --> CBA problem.
I see people bring this up any time I criticize dark souls. It's a cool little novelty sure, but it's not enough to make the entire game good. And it's only really like that for the first half as well.
@@crunchy_crop Yeah I didn't like the second half of the game at all.
i actually played with lock on in dark souls 2 because i played a mage type character and I had no problem because i learned to space ennemies attacks and i trained to use the camera correctly.
rafael de sa adegas I used lock on when necessary, but I mostly free aimed my spells. Got really good at it
@@Jutleyfication i feel like it would be hard to free aim the magic arrows on smaller ennemies but if you do it easily then gg
I love Dark Souls 2, a lot. Incredibly fun game that doesn’t deserve all it’s criticism. Many of your points I’d agree with.
Though I heavily disagree with some of points against 1 in this video, almost all of them really. I maybe even enjoyed 2 more than 1 myself, but it’s very hard to make a case against DS1 when it comes to game design. It’s just better than 2 in a number of ways and almost all of your attempts to poke holes in what it’s known for are kinda weird. Certainly that are issues with it’s world structure but most of it’s praise is very well deserved.
Then also one last thing, I feel Souls fans usually extrapolate way too much meaning from simple things in the games. There’s a number of examples of that here, but one that struck me in particular is the NG+ point. Not immediately thrusting you into NG+ was almost certainly just a QOL change, nothing more. There’s very very likely no extra intended meaning to that. It’s entertaining to think one up, and I even agree that the potential symbolism there is plausible, but there’s no way Fromsoftware intended that.
I think the reverence to which some Souls fans hold these games up to is a bit worrying. This behavior is what leads to these made up hidden meanings. Many things, like that NG+ option, are just simply what they are and nothing more.
Definitely agree, some things are just the devs saying "You know, we shouldn't have done this in the last game, let's just fix it here". Not much else to it besides practicality
both games have issues, sadly not all has been fixed or new problems have been created (even in DS3 :( ).
the nonlinearity is a good point but I liked the master key and the fact that you could do quelaag first if you wanted to. it makes subsequent runs much more fun
"Dark Souls 2 doesn't place roadblocks in the most obvious gateways of progression"
laughs in statue
Laughs in pile of rubble
To be fair, it was a lot better before Scholar of the First SIn saw fit to make it 5.67x worse.
*laughs in a meter and a half of debree stopping every living being from entering the mighty castle of drangleic just because the the Shrine of Winter looks sexier and everyone wants to pass through that*
Hbomberguy: The story in Dark Souls 2 is actually kind of genius
The story: “Welp, looks like theres a bit of rubble where I’m trying to go, better just kill every living creature in Drangleic!”
4x the rotten is basically easier than fixing the doorway.....
Monster Hunter World actually does have a lock-on, but I basically never use it because awareness is super important.
Monster Hunter - monster Hunter Generations and MHGU's Japanese Japanese release doesn't have a lock on system
@@bom.6658 Huh, didn't know that.
Yeah and how else are you gonna cream you pants when you pull of a badass move without free cam
Playing World with a button to snap the camera at the monster but still keeping control of the camera at all times has worked the best for me (the common camera controls present in games before world). World's lock on really messed me up especially when mons got far more mobile
So hbomberfah doesnt even get this one thing right lmao this video is a mess
Having 2 be my entry into the From Soft games made this game special to me.
The way I played it at first was with the knight class. When the hollows started throwing daggers at me, I learned to be as aggressive as possible unless I wanted to be chipped to death.
The moment I got my hands on a shield, I was already aggressive. I learned that using a shield allows me to be even more up close and personal without as much punishment.
I never read item lore but the world spoke volumes on it's own.
Kingdom after kingdom. From the White towers upon the sea to the Iron Keep, all reduced to a land of bumbling undead yet all beautiful with their own color pallets and designs.
I remember reaching the end, sitting upon the throne
First in awe "I did it! I beat everyone!" then that mood melted away to "now what... do I share the same fate as that tall dead dude with a crown?"
I guess I just got lucky enough to have a good experience. Maybe because it's my first, I like it so much.
Definitely, it seems to be people (sometimes unknowingly) being used to the other games that causes them to not like the differences in this one
@@jasonmendoza2044
Sadly, it's the same thing, every time, for every game.
If developers change any aspect of their previous game in a sequel, there's hordes of whiny man-children, stomping the ground and screaming until either their moms or the developers step in to please the spoiled adult-brats.
I'd say, a person who doesn't "enjoy" the absence of treasured features is not at fault. But anyone who responds with hatred needs a therapist.
I played Dark Souls 1 not long after it came out and liked it, but was never super into it.
I loved Dark Souls 2 though, and when I went on and saw how everyone was saying it was too hard, I was quite confused. As I found the first game too hard and DKS2 just right. O_o
I beat Smough and Ornstein first try, walking in blind with an unoptimized character. When i later learned how they were deemed "impossible" by such a large portion of the fanbase I was flabbergasted... I didn't think I was that good at games. XD For real though it was beginners luck, as I found them much tougher on my second and third playthorughs.
ds2 is by no means a bad game and you are well within your right to enjoy it, the reason why people give it so much hate is simply because most of what it does well is because of what it takes from the original but with tons of other things that make it much worse than the original. it isn't a bad game but it is much worse than the original
@@finn488 agreed. But god damn the hitboxes don’t exist
Having only bought and played SOTFS, I can't help but wonder what the game used to be. I remember getting really frustrated in Forest of the Giants because of just how MANY enemies there were around some corners, but once I got a playstyle down that could handle it I quite enjoyed it. I cannot imagine the game with less fuckers trying to swarm you
Woow you mean to tell me people bitch non stop about vanilla and there were LESS enemies? 😂 I thought it was the other way around having played SOFTS only
38:42
I know Dark Souls can be challenging, but who the hell stops at getting the Estus Flasks.
Macbeth is happy go lucky guy who is destined to be king but it turns out being king isn't all it's cracked up to be.
- Macbeth starring Rob Schneider
They say rob schneieeeeieieieideer will be in the new “weekend at bernies” film
"Rated PG-13"
Even though I not always agree with mr. bomberguy, I usually respect him for his ability to reason his arguments. However, anyone who calls archers in ds1 oppressive right before definding the "shrine of slow moving homing projectiles fired at you from multiple angles while you slowly wade through waist deep water while being attack by crawly things in said water" IS A HORRENDOUS DEVIANT AND MUST BE PURGED!
Don't forget the fact even though hbomberguy complains about the archers, he praises The Gutter. As in, one of the absolute worst areas in the game, wherein a bunch of obnoxious, un-targetable statues keep shooting venom at you in the dark, so that you can't see them properly, right next to a bunch of other statues that look exactly the same but do nothing. Thus you're forced progress at an obnoxiously slow pace every time you traverse the area, even if you know the layout and enemy placement pretty well.
At least the archers don't dictate the pace you take. You can just sanic your way past them, running as fast as you can, tank them with a Havel set, or take a middle-road approach and progress at a moderate pace while dodging just as the arrows are about to hit you.
Yeah this was the first of his videos I disagree with almost entirely. Like, his comparison between ds1 and 2 in terms of parrys where ds2 went completely overboard with it's silly "Oh god, my attack was deflected I shall lay down to ponder the futility of my existence" animation. I don't know how anyone could think that to be an improvement over ds1 animation wich gives ample time to react and doesn't make your enemy (or your character) look like a complete idiot. Also how the hell did he get the idea that you can'r do a riposte while 2 handing? Like, you have enough time to weapon swap AND 2 hand after a parry in ds1 that was even a common sight in duels.
GorillerViller I think the stupid riposte animation was added so that n00bz could perform that trick wherein you change your weapon to a massive cleaver after riposting and cause immense amounts of damage. The window in DkS1 was very small.
But this unintended mechanic was unfair in the first place; they should have removed it, not closed the chasm between casuals and hardcore players. Someone wielding a scimitar should not be able to riposte for a 1-hit kill.
Leonardo Santos Dear god I just watched that prt again and he mentions how dark souls 2 even gives you an "extremely cool" sound cue when your parry was successful and I just..... I.... ok
1. Yes that sound is extremely cool
2. IT'S THE SAME ONE AS IN DARK SOULS AHHH
hbomb wtf you doin man.
Yes, I actually do wish hbomberguy be thrown in the never ending fires of cleansing pain for defending the shrine of manamana duduu dududu.
Man my issues with two have always been mechanical things to do with the game engine, weapon and armor degradation scaling with frame rate so that things break unusually quick on pc, that has only gotten worse with higher frame rates in recent years as the game ages, the soul count stuff where you could band apart playing with friends across multiple play throughs, that's all I can remember after all these years. The game was great, outside of some janky issues that arise from negligence towards pc players in making the port. Also the bonfire ascetics that increase the level of specific areas which is neat on it's own but the odd reliance on using that mechanic as the only source for rare armors for players to get rather than just not putting the armor that was often mediocre somewhere else or not there at all.
I played Dark Souls II for the first time last year and had a negative reaction to it, even after completing it multiple times. Well, it turns out the issue was the fact I jumped in to Scholar first per the recommendation of others. Last week I decided to track down the original PS3 and 360 versions of Dark Souls II to see the differences and I have put about eight hours into it so far. I'm having a much better time with it. Enemy layouts are much more manageable, there are less unnecessary obstacles blocking your way (like the stone statues keeping you from accessing certain areas early), and overall the progression just flows smoother and is more fun. Scholar seems like an edition meant for expert players. While I have no problem with that existing and I did get through it fine, it was more frustrating and thus less enjoyable. There seems to be a misconception going around now that it's the ideal version to play, but I think this is false and I would highly recommend new players try the original game first.
Valid point. 👍
I myself started with the original version and had lots of trouble with it because I wasn’t used to the game (despite having 150+ hours in DS1). The health-reduction mechanic is not needed imo and can severely hinder you when you’re new to the game (or the series). I’ve been having a much better time with the game with the SotFS because I got used to the original (DS2) game with time and have gotten the hang of it. The same was true with DS1 but I learnt the mechanics a lot faster thus got into the game easier. 👌
It's not a misconception that d SotFS is the way to play. Major preformance overhauls like jumps to 1080p and 60fps blow out of the water any gameplay alteration from the base game. This is emphasized by the fact that its advertised as the Definitive Edetion and the Director's Cut on Steam
I agree with you. I haven't played Scholar, but I did watch half of an LP of it and after Bamco finally put the original version of the game on sale on Steam I bought it and tried it and the difference in enemy amounts is insane to me. The lack of tons of the statues I remembered from the Scholar version... vanilla is way closer to a well designed game. The encounters are far more important to the game, and the flow is broken by the enemy spam. As are the literal barriers that weren't there.
The only thing that the original sucked for in comparison was the lack of that shortcut in the area with the pirate ship. That bridge not being there is something I forgot hearing about and was confused on when I got there. It looks like it should have always been there. Weird choice in the original.
Maybe the later areas were different, but the first half of the game i watched and I think it was largely handled better. Maybe the pursuer actually pursuing you in various areas is a good improvement, I don't know. I can see the argument on that being an improvement, but I could also see it as just filler. But considering the title the enemy has... you'd expect a bit more out of him than the original gave. But is it really fun to do the same fight over and over?...
@ michael - I played on PC so was already getting 60fps in vanilla. There's a reason they still sell the original version of the game on Steam, while they delisted the original Dark Souls after it's remaster. Because the alterations changed the core experience of the game.
Also the DLC's reinforce your point about the inevitable cycles. Each one is about a king who almost lost their throne to a queen who was a descendant of Manus. They all mirror Vendric's story
Too bad DS1 did the same thing, but didn't sledgehammer it into your face like you were a child.
The DLC are where the narrative and gameplay really shine (like in DS1 btw), it's a shame they weren't discussed more. Probably because they aren't criticized so much.
@@fafofafinfridgid outskirts
The Gutter actually has more than just one direction you can go about it, HOWEVER you are pretty much locked into that direction once you start it. You can especially feel this if you want to fully light up the gutter. Once you light that sconce there's no real reason for you to go back that way and it feels good too.
20:00 Interestingly, I locked on during the Twin Dragonrider fight and similar fights but had mastered the flow of the encounter to the point that I was able to dodge attacks without looking, I just knew about when they were supposed to land.