My main complaint about 2 is the tone of the game. In 1 with each boss we slay it feels like we are slowly fixing things. We are putting the smugglers out of their misery, crushing the hag's coven, and laying the necromancers to rest. We are the force that is breathing new life in a nearly doomed town. With 2 we are a merry band of murder hobos in a doomed world trying to get to a mountain. It does not feel like we are succeeding in actually making progress in the world around us.
Maybe you're just immersing yourself more in dd1. I'm currently playing 1 and it doesn't feel thar way at all. It feels like I'm just fighting to survive in a doomed world
@@leodarknesshelm I mean, yeah, but you come to a point, where you get a grip and it really does feel like you make a difference in the world, be it just a small part of it, but still.
Always expect hight quality from this channel, but can I say that is one of the coolest swipe screen animation I've ever seen in this kind of videos (chef's kiss).
4:52 you do not have to kill all the bosses in order to take on the darkest dungeon. There is no requirement to enter the darkest dungeon, but if you are expected to survive it is required you have Heroes of resolve level 5 or 6. There's even an achievement earned for tossing for resolve level 0 Heroes into the darkest dungeon; so again there is no requirement to enter the darkest dungeon.
You are correct, though admittedly the wording for this sentence in the video was poor. I did not mean there was any prerequisite or unlocking required, I meant that typical progression would see all the bosses slain, and thus heroes then have enough XP to attempt the final dungeons.
My take: Darkest Dungeon 2 is a good game, but it sadly followed a great game that is DD1. Too many changes to simple formula, all we wanted was more dungeons, bosses and Hamlet stuff. Total conversion mod called Black Reliquary is true DD2. If those games were released in different order, then all would be fine.
I feel you but the problem Is that dd2 can't risk being similar to 1 because if people wanted more of 1, there's like a million mods that act as free dlc for them to play and have fun with
I agree. If this wasn’t marketed as a sequel but rather as a story spin off version of the original, then it would’ve been received much more positively.
@@doctordice2doctordice210mods should never be an excuse because not everybody is comfortable in using them and they are obviously not cannon unless redhook says so
@@freddamian1019 WTF. Mods are awesome and can greatly extend the enjoyment people get from a game. It does not matter about canon and as long as the person is willing to try mods are not hard to get working.
I used to hate DD2 with a passion when I played it right after launch. I kept missing the old features of the game and after 3 failed runs against the Act 3 boss I decided to just quit DD2 and play Black Reliquary. After a year since DD2 launch I decided to play it again and I enjoyed it a ton. Red Hook balanced out the heroes and the bosses and the game felt a lot more fun. After 130 hours in DD2 and 300~ in DD1 + Black Reliquary, I'd say DD2 is a lot better than DD1 for these two reasons: 1) The token combat system in DD2 offers a lot of counter-play to the randomness in DD. Once you know how to provision, what heroes go in which dungeon and how each boss is suppose to be fought, most of DD1's difficulty comes from the randomness in fights. Will I miss my attack? Will the enemy crit? Will this hero get focus fired? All of it is inherently random and yes while you are able to predict some outcomes in certain situations, most of the time it is completely based off of a dice roll. While it is tense, there is little to no counter-play unless you have an extremely safe team. Yes DD2 still has this randomness in the fights, but the tokens being there make it so that these dice rolls aren't impacting you the exact moment the dice is rolled. Allowing the player to decide how to deal with the unlucky dice roll. For example, the main damage dealer in the enemy team used an ability that gave them a CRIT token. The crit didn't happen this turn so your team has to have an answer to it or else they will eat a fat crit. There are multiple ways to make sure that doesn't happen. Highwayman could steal the crit token. Plague Doctor could shuffle the enemy out of position. Man-at-arms can daze the enemy and your team can focus fire it before it can attack. Crusader can give the team a block token. Leper can taunt and give the enemy a weaken token. You can use a combat item that can also blind, shuffle, taunt and block. Combat is the main appeal of the game and combat being this more dynamic in DD2 makes the overall game experience way more enjoyable. 2) The rouge like change made decisions more impactful and difficult. In DD1 aside from your first run in a dungeon or first time fighting a boss, most of it is very stale. Once you know how the game works most of the decisions boil down to: use this trinket since its broken, use these provisions for maximum loot and survivability, use these heroes here since their skills and stats are good in this dungeon, loot this curio with this provision as its gives the best result. Once you know how to fight each dungeon and how to deal with each boss, the decisions you have to make aren't difficult at all. Its all rinse and repeat until your characters are skilled enough to fight in the DD. In DD2 every decision you make requires some amount of thought whether its your 10th hour of play or your 100th. What should I buy from the first inn? What region do I go to first? Should I save up for the hoarder? Should I prioritize loot, flame or relationship? What lair boss should I fight? Should I visit the hospital or the oasis? Because of all these random factors and the fact that you start with basically nothing every run, the "best" decision is never clear at all. Your priorities vary every single run depending on what your team is currently lacking and what opportunities are given in the regions. This makes awareness and knowledge a lot more rewarding compared to DD1. Regarding everything else like progression, graphics, UI, story and what not, I don't think there is too much difference in quality between the two. DD2 has animated backgrounds, full 3D characters and animated attacks, and a modern UI. DD1's story felt more important. Progression between the two is mostly the same. DD1 has the hamlet, DD2 has the alter of hope. DD1 has resolve 6 heroes, DD2 has 5 memory heroes. DD1 you defeat the same bosses in the same dungeons 3 times per difficulty, DD2 you play the same 4 regions until you beat the 5 confession bosses. With all of this in mind, I have no idea why DD2 gets so much hate from DD1 fans. The game changed into a rouge-like but the core mechanics and design got a 1 to 1 upgrade. I honestly hope its not just nostalgia talking as I really don't see any other complaint that isn't that. Thanks for reading this far and if you disagree with me, I would love to hear what you think.
@Farendaleit’s coming out on PlayStation in five days and soon on other consoles. It’s about to get even more to its audience so really no the damage hasn’t been done.
After playing dd2 and seeing dd1 purist haters who lack understanding bashing it... I can never find myself going back to dd1 in the same way. Each run in dd2 is unique. Then most dd1 purist hating 90% are not playing vanilla it's uberly modded, or playing black reliquary. Yet completion rate 15% finished dd2 while we still sitting at 5% for dd1. It's more fun , has all the roller coaster of emotions. The story dd1 one is just the estate while dd2 focus of the kingdom beyond the estate and the story of the heroes. Whoever says dd2 story is lacking then you really not paying attention to the story beats
I haven't tried dd2 yet, well only once during prerelease while visiting a friend in his house, but I found interesting some mechanics like the monsters now having deaths door checks. I want to give it a try soon, this video and your comment made me want to play it a little more.
DD2 is good, but DD1 is just amazing! i kinda dropped DD2 after about 20h and didnt bother to come back but DD1 i ALWAYS find myself craving replaying it
One of the things i feel weighing 2 down is run length. In DD1 i could boot up on my switch and take my c team on a short mission and itd be complete really quick. While i always feel i need a few hours to sit for every session of dd2.
I work a job where I have to sleep overnight at the workplace (it's a care job, I look after people) When my clients are all in bed and I've done my writing I play my switch for like 20 minutes. Both games are perfect for small sessions
I actually dont think the new graphics have improved the game at all. The first game was quite immersive with its 'choppy' graphics, and it made sense given how the combat is fundamentally simple, with turn base and no movemet. The combat of the second one feels goofy, in part due to the higher graphics and 3d.
Yes! Cheap-ish 3D graphics just look bad. The animations, the way the monsters and people move doesn't feel real, it feels off. Like they have no weight and always move exactly in the same way, which is fine for a simplistic style, not so much in a realistic one. A real person doesn't do everything with the exact same motion. The game still only looks at everything from one side. The world still feels 2D, but the people in fron semi 3D. Once again, it feels like it doesn't match. I never understood the obsession with 3D in games where it doesn't help. The visuals of the first game where not about fidelity or animations. They were about the setting and tone. And it did a fantastic job. Why change that? Why invest so much work and money into something that wasn't that important? Also, mods ... One can provide easy modding for a 2D engine. The first game is partially so amazing and long lived, because it has amazing mods. That goes all out the window with the second game.
I dunno, to me the first game's 2d sprites look much better than the 3d models. It might be related to how they move, to how choppy it is, or something of that style, I'm not so sure. It's a bit like Warhammer's (fantasy or 40k) artwork, where some of the art looks very well-made and competent, it does not inspire the same as some insane-looking stuff by John Blanche or Ian Miller.
The animations are very strange, yeah. They're a bit too, idk, enthusiastic? Like everyone is doing the combat bounce like they're throwing it down on the dance floor. It throws the whole vibe of combat off because the game is trying to be gritty, but their animations look more like they're having fun than being tense. Less overall movement would do a lot, in addition to some emphasis on their weaponry.
My true problem with DD2 is that, It can't sell me the same atmosphere of DD1. Driving on a dark road with no possible backup or help is scary as hell, and the game is unable to make me feel fear and dread like the real deal or as DD1. Just thinking about walking in the Weald or the Warrens. I already drove in fucked places, no internet, no backup, no one to pass by and help in Brazil, It is as scary as you can imagine.
Great video I think the thing I appreciate most about DD2 is the shift to a more positive and morally 'good' story (to some extent). While I confess some mixed feelings towards DD2 in gameplay its a great game
I tell people this all the time. Darkest dungeon 1 has way more in common with xcom than it does any roguelike, and actually trying to change that for 2 is a large part of why it didn't do so well
I just can't find a single redeeming quality about darkest dungeon 2. To me it's a down step in every single way. And despite being a bit of a graphics snob, I actually liked the previous Style more. I liked the comic animations, and the smaller characters, which is quite a surprise to me. The new style is also very nice, looking, I just prefer the old version.
the change in engine is really felt, imo DD1 ran better, and the art had more charm. I'm still undecided whether I regret my purchase or not, it's definitely not what I expected
After playing for 10+ hours, the main problem I have with DD2 is the repetition feels much like a grind rather than progression Would be nice if you could voluntarily end the run at any point and somehow keep one of your heroes for the next, so you are emotionally invested with an actual benefit when progressing
DD2 lacks tension. I can't understand how the same creators missed the point of the first game so much. The strenght of the first wasn't the atmosphere, the art or the gameplay(even though they are also really good) the strong point was "loss of progression", the fear, the overconfidence is the most insidious killer. Getting partywiped, losing your best mercs, getting cursed are all permanent you upgrade the hamlet, you get trinkets (that you can lose)but you are the same you just progress from 0 faster, losing is shit you fear losing, you don't "just start a run" you prepare for a run. That was the fun and looking at dd1 dlcs like crimson court i thought developer understood since they doubled down on punishment
Hey, uh...I loved your game comparison and review, if you are accepting any requests or something, I'd love to hear you about "Salt and Sanctuary" and "Salt and Sacrifice", but just if you're willing to. Again, nice review, made want to play DD again and DD2
I don't know why that changed so much. I personally don't mind making it more accessible but i prefer the tone of DD1 before Color Od Madness. Im not a huge fan of the Sci Fi nearly as much. All they needed to do was upgrade the graphics and make it more accessible to casuals and i would have bought it in a heartbeat. DD2 just doesn't look good to me.
It’s a totally different game. Most of us who liked the tactical aspects of DD1, it’s a micromgmt game where progression is about using different categories of units to upgrade a hamlet/ town. DD2 gives stories to the units 😂 I’m sorry it’s just… a very different game. It’s possible to like both but from what I’ve seen, most ppl who like 1 don’t like 2 very much, & vice versa.
@@scarletsletter4466 That is the risk of running a game as a sequel to an established game. A sequel is inherently promising 'more of the same', maybe not in every way but in some manner. That promise lets you keep the audience from the first game interested but the cost is that if you deviate too much you risk a backlash due to it. DD2 seems to have deviated to the extent where the audiences of each game don't overlap for each game resulting in the current situation where DD1 has a notably more active playerbase (at least on steam) despite DD2 only releasing a year and a bit ago.
Slight correction: you needn't beat all the bosses in DD1 to take on the final area in DD2. You can even send four fresh recruits in right off the bat.
DD2 is a game totally dependant from his predecesor. Imagine if DD2 was the first game, what kind of involvement can you get from that game? None. Your desicions doesn`t matter, if you die you restart with the same char and that`s all.
Not sure which one I like better, but I think they're both masterpieces in game design and presentation. I'm glad they're different so I still feel compelled to enjoy them both.
Darkest Dungeon 2 is not what Darkest Dungeon fans wanted, I can tell you that, I gaved up on Darkest Dungeon 2 since it's just grindy and tedious experience that makes it very boring, they adapted slay the spire system and didn't bring anything new and make the gameplay loop a boring and slow grindfest. Huge miss in my opinion.
I love DD1 & Slay the Spire. I wish I could get into DD2 but I just find it so… not engaging. Idk. 🤷🏼♀️ I guess I’ll keep playing bc maybe it’ll get better
Dd2 has great potential, the bosses were just unfair until you meta progress and then they are too easy. I died like 4 times or more to the first boss and then every following run was a victory on the following boss until I just beat the game. Also the progression wasn’t fun nor long enough, and although you progress the enemies do not. Just the boss changes to a new one. But the characters and the skill interactions were good, a run took an amount of time not too long, not too short. Camp system was good, not enough item variety. Parmadeath wasn’t as meaningful because it was only a per run basis. I really feel like they were on to something with this game but either lost the vision they set out to create or simply did not give it enough time to be built into something as great as dd1. I really enjoyed the game which is why it really felt like there was so much potential they were able to create but not capitalize on. If they could make the balancing more dynamic, add some content, more item and enemy variety, and tinker the progression to be more rewarding, I think it could really be the game that it feels like it should’ve been. The game is finished but it feels like they only scratched the surface of what they could have created. And I haven’t played it since release but it didn’t have much content, whereas dd1 is so damn long that despite the fact I have come back to it so many times over the years I still haven’t seen the darkest dungeon even once 😂.
I prefer DD2. You focus on the party you want to use instead of having to grind for levels/upgrades to get the 4 best while you juggle sanity which your favorite hero is insane you have to spend two runs and money just to lower their sanity. People complain on the travel yet when you explore a big dungeon is a long travel pressing right until you backtrack to the place you need to get. Personally i like the hope and more heroic theme of the heroes
Never finished the first game (not yet at least) and I feel you completely with the having to spend multiple runs and thousands of coin to recooperate my main set of heroes while sending off people I don’t care about to sustain them. Dd2 feels a lot better since I always gain something from my failures
DD1 combat was better. The unreliable RNG was the soul and spirit of the game. Once had a Houndmaster survive Death's Door for what had to be like twenty turns, tanking HUGE shots. He then got an inspiration and took out the boss. I was one of my all time favorite gaming experiences. I had none of that playing DD2.
Yeah, it removes both the highs and the lows from the experience. Now you just end up with a muddy middle way that isn't as exciting. Sure, it absolutely hurts to lose a character in 1. It can be devastating. But the highs are also some of the most intense experiences I've ever had in a game. It gives you a rush that the second just can't give you. And that doesn't work with this incredibly dark setting. It works so well in 1 because it actually is that dark. It actually is that devastating but you can be that glimmer of hope and light. In 2? Well, who cares ... just do another run. The world is dark and gloomy, but ... just start new, the characters don't ever die, anyways.
I feel like if Red Hook didn't call DD2 "DD2" people wouldn't be nearly as disappointed. Some sort of spinoff name wouldn't make people assume its a sequel, and have the mechanics of the first game + a bit extra. Or I could be wrong and people still wouldn't care for it as much as the first game, even if it had an entirely different name.
The differences between the two games remind me about the first two Dragon Age games, the first being an isometric RPG, the second being an action RPG (and the third one being a single player MMO). The changes in the DD2 coupled with several PR mistakes criplled the game so much that even today, with a Dlc just launched, more people are playing the first one than the sequel. As you said, each game has its own kind of players but you didn't mention the main reason why the first game will outlive the sequel: mods. Even before its launch, the first game had mods: monsters, characters and so on. It's why, today, the sequel seems to lack content, even the dlc, two characters, a new boss and that's it. For the first game, each Dlc characters brought with them new mechanics for the whole game. It's likely we will never see modding coming for the second game, first because of the unity scandal (and Unity are in deep need of money right now, they just fired one thousand employees) and because Red Hook would have to create a program to let modders mod the game. The problem is if this program can be used to mod another unity game, Red Hook could be sued for piracy... Second: Epic does not allow mods. Red Hook already switched their main selling platform between games, it will be really hard for them to go back on Steam with the same game. Third: only 10 members of RH, so a third of the studio, as announced in an interview, is working on DD2. Today three overhaulls of the first game are in the works, sharing the same world. Imo, the first game will be like Skyrim, modded for years to come when the sequel is like Starfield: done. Even a contracted worker who created icons in the second game went to help the team of the Black Reliquary... By making a game so different, they cut they fan base, by choosing Epic, they left the modding community behind and the games being so different, the modding community decide to stay focused on the first one because it has a bigger fanbase and is simpler to mod. Its why when the first game sold 16 millions units, the second barely managed to obtain 2. All of this can be related to dragon age. Bioware went to Origin for the sequel, changed engines (which killed the modding) and changed the kind of game it was. It's stricly the same thing: they divided their fanbase. RH made an interview with the biggest streamer of DD2 and just obtained 13k views, even when they announced an expansion for next year. The cards are in their hands and i'm curious to see what will happen. I'm a big fan of the first game and, as a PR teacher, i use the VG industry as examples because all my studients play VG. Red Hook made mistakes but, contrary to a lot of studio, made good decisions, as letting the Black Reliquary having its own steam page or letting the Iron Crown overhaull being created (at last for now). Their PR manager is way better than the ones at Bioware...
You should do PR for Red Hook. One thing I've always thought Red Hook was missing was a good PR guy to make sure their second game was the same as their first game.
@@themobiusquadron if you say so... I waited and today, the second game stand by 880 players on steam while the first one is at 6k... DD2 is dead while the first one stay as it was because of mods. I suppose you already moved on, as everyone that played DD2...
@@malcomyoung2240 I always return to dd2, no mods motivate me in playing dd1, do a few levels for nostalgia but besides that... is back to dd2. And last hero update began giving new strats to use with Audrey and Dismas.
To me DD2 isn't worse or better, it's just different. Which isn't inherently bad but didn't need to be when making the next installment of an already understood and good foundation.
DD1 has mods and is overall a superior game. DD2 has no mods, lower modding potential and not even an official support. On top of that everything feels so random.
The thing is DD1 is a completely finished game with two DLCs, DD2 still has a long road to go. But atm I think DD1 is better, but DD2 has potential to be better
I bought dd2 first day, but i just couldnt get into it since there no management gameplay loop. It was a step back to pure roguelike where you unlock things between runs regardless if you are successful. Its banging your head against a wall till it breaks vs a long continuous journey it feels like. They just now put out a campaign mode, and this feels like something they should have released with. Ill comtinue to revisit dd1 while ignoring dd2 till it feels finished 😂
Yeah, there's a reason DD1 sold 10x as many copies. Nobody wants to admit it, but DD2 was a lazy cash-grab. They threw together a quick release and accepted a bag of cash from Epic Games. I don't blame them - I would have done the same thing. A man's gotta eat! But let's not lie and pretend DD2 is anywhere nearly as masterfully crafted as DD1.
All we wanted was another DD1 but with the improved graphics from DD2.... why was that so hard to get?? How can you fail something so obvious... The developers failed miserably, may they never be forgiven.
It realllllly depends on the person they're enjoyable for different reasons the character stories in DD2 is amazing but the main story is much much weaker The second game has more consistent gameplay but DD1 was good because of it's inconsistency
I've only had about 30 hours in 2, but yeah... I dunno. I really don't think it's even gonna be comparable at this point The first one actually felt much more fair in terms of difficulty. I beat it on stygian but I don't know if I'll be able to do it on 2
I feel alone in that DD2 just feels like a WAY better game to me. Everything from the graphics, presentation, gameplay, characters, world and mechanics. I guess I didn't get hooked on DD like many people did, but it just felt clunky and hard to understand, DD2 is just as punishing but without all the clunky menus and towns.
The main difference between the games is that the grind in DD2 feels less rewarding than the grind in DD1. Otherwise, they are functionally the same game with minor differences in execution. DD1 grind is upgrading your town and heroes and collecting trinkets, while DD2 grind is upgrading your wagon, unlocking stuff and getting to the point where you wiped last time just to try again.
since a lot of people seem to disagree imma go against the current and say that i like dd2 much more than dd1. it's not a thing of the second game being for newbies or it being simplified (i would challenge anybody here to complete a grand slam without losing their minds), it's just that i like roguelites more and the structure of the game is more suited for me. if the game isn't fun for you that's fine just don't expect a dd 1.5 when jumping in the second game.
8:11 Ooof. I'd better get this game before the devs go bankrupt from installs :/ Hopefully they can migrate to Godot! I love how slick the animation is. Like, the Occultist smoothly sheathing that dagger really DOES IT fur me
uh… yeah, that ain’t happening anymore. heck, i don’t think that was still a thing when you wrote that. they fired their CEO and reneged on the whole idea
@@mkv2718That whole debacle was absolutely nuts. Sure greed knows no bounds and all, but that wasn’t just greedy, it was beyond moronic. I’m still friggin’ stunlocked thinking about the whole situation…
9:10 you mentioned the UI, the UI for DD2 is regarded as one of the biggest travesties of the whole thing, and yet you mention that it makes it more accessible... No, it doesn't there's 20 menus in the inn for no absolute reason, it could all have been done with 2 or 3 menus, that's just one of the huge issues with the UI/UX/HUD
I keep seeing this same problem plaguing rogue-likes and resulting in abandonment of their core audience while offering very little appeal to other gamers . Devs seem to be getting this idea that they must allow players to complete a game eventually by making progression tied not to player skill but to stats. For rogue-like fans this removes the sense of achievement because it enforces a "lose to win" loop where the gane gets easier over time and for everyone else they recognise the title as a treadmill rather than a game. And you notice I keep referring to these two distinct groups and that is because when you look at discussions over the pros and cons of various rogue-likes you see two clear attitudes - those who expect to win and those who expect to lose. The rogue fans want for the game to be beatable on the very first run not to have multiple runs become mandatory. Meanwhile the more casual gamers have little tolerance for being sent back to square one. That dichotomy of expectation can only be addressed by an opt-in meta progression system that is designed in such a way that isn't nessersary to engage with it to finish the game. This shift for DD2 actually moves it further away from the rogue-like formula towards a more modern RPG where you're not "making the best of a bad situation" but rather doing team building with minimal need for creative thinking.
Isn't 'lose to win' one of the defining features of the metaprogression stage of a roguelike? Then once the metaprogression is complete you're left with a balanced but still challenging game.
This is exactly right. If you look at a game like Slay the Spire which one could call a perfect example of the genre- you can win from the very first run. Yes, you unlock more cards, but none of the unlocks are necessary to beat the run. You don’t need to lose runs til you unlock all the cards. If you know how to play, you can win all the way from zero to Ascension 20. DD1 was more of a strategy/ micro mgmt game whereas DD2 is trying to be a roguelike. But as OP says, it’s definitely more of the “treadmill” type where you’ve gotta lose for a while. I’ve not enjoyed my time with it yet but I’m hopeful it’ll get better… since I already paid for it 😂
I really enjoy 2 more. I like both games and I can play either which is cool but I always find myself playing 2. It's easier to play for shorter periods of time and also easier to come back to after a long time of not playing without feeling mixed up. Plus it looks way cooler which is awesome to me.
I like difficulty in my games. I love Sekiro and Elden Ring for that reason, but what I vehemently dislike is punishing games. I have no problem bashing my head against a wall until I learn to overcome it, but I am not okay with losing half or all of my progress in a game when I fail. I really liked the original Darkest Dungeon, but I never finished it. I tried the last dungeon and my party wiped... I would have no problem trying again, but I would have to level up a new squad of heroes, equip them and that was just way too much work to just try again.
Yeah I put upwards to 100 hours into that run but after I ran out of resolve 6 heroes to attempt the Darkest Dungeon with it just felt like a chore than a challenge
I have 277 Steam hours played on Darkest Dungeon 1. I refunded DD2 after 45 minutes. A lot of people like to be gentle and say, "DD2 isn't bad. It's just different!" No, DD2 is bad.
Man so many bad faith arguments from DD2 haters is really frustrating. Im convinced 90% of these comments about DD2 have either barely played the game or just don't understand it whatsoever
I never got into DD 1, its just so confusing with all these stats. Hard to read and the UI is really bad imo. DD 2 is a mich better game for me and if you want a real rougelike game, this is the one to go.
I think DD1 allows you to play and face challanges the way you want to. DD2 says how you are supposted to do things optimaly or suffer for not doing so. ( I know there is somehwat variety of choosing characters and their paths even tho some feel simply much better than the others, but there is no such thing at all with trinkets. The game is much more reliant on RNG much more than the first one, and in the places where it shouldnt be. )
Absolutely loved the first game. The second game is a huge disappointment. It's like they went out of their way to dumb it down, and the whole stagecoach thing... it was just a bad idea. It's so incredibly silly as a concept, not dark or frightening at all... and there's NO FREAKING DUNGEONS.
New DLC announced does in fact contain.... the Crusader.
My main complaint about 2 is the tone of the game. In 1 with each boss we slay it feels like we are slowly fixing things. We are putting the smugglers out of their misery, crushing the hag's coven, and laying the necromancers to rest. We are the force that is breathing new life in a nearly doomed town. With 2 we are a merry band of murder hobos in a doomed world trying to get to a mountain. It does not feel like we are succeeding in actually making progress in the world around us.
Maybe you're just immersing yourself more in dd1. I'm currently playing 1 and it doesn't feel thar way at all. It feels like I'm just fighting to survive in a doomed world
@@leodarknesshelm I mean, yeah, but you come to a point, where you get a grip and it really does feel like you make a difference in the world, be it just a small part of it, but still.
@aro480_ still if you immerse yourself in any game then it'll feel that way. People aren't trying to like dd2 that's the problem
People aren't liking it because it's so different from the first game. Why would they just decide to not like it for no reason?
thats so not true
i killed the same necromancer 3 times and the ruins are still full of skeletons
Always expect hight quality from this channel, but can I say that is one of the coolest swipe screen animation I've ever seen in this kind of videos (chef's kiss).
I would back a crowdfund for RedHook to remake DD1 on 2's engine and graphics.
So you want it's unique quality to die
@@MGrey-qb5xz Don’t care about DD2s unique quality. I want 1 to look better.
@@Ocean5ixI think he meant DD1’s look, not DD2.
Red Hook seems to favor making new things.
@@Ocean5ix DD1 looks good as it is no need for "upgrade" liek dd2 or w/e , we just wanted new dungeons bosses items heroes etc.
4:52 you do not have to kill all the bosses in order to take on the darkest dungeon. There is no requirement to enter the darkest dungeon, but if you are expected to survive it is required you have Heroes of resolve level 5 or 6.
There's even an achievement earned for tossing for resolve level 0 Heroes into the darkest dungeon; so again there is no requirement to enter the darkest dungeon.
You are correct, though admittedly the wording for this sentence in the video was poor. I did not mean there was any prerequisite or unlocking required, I meant that typical progression would see all the bosses slain, and thus heroes then have enough XP to attempt the final dungeons.
My take: Darkest Dungeon 2 is a good game, but it sadly followed a great game that is DD1. Too many changes to simple formula, all we wanted was more dungeons, bosses and Hamlet stuff. Total conversion mod called Black Reliquary is true DD2. If those games were released in different order, then all would be fine.
I feel you but the problem Is that dd2 can't risk being similar to 1 because if people wanted more of 1, there's like a million mods that act as free dlc for them to play and have fun with
I agree. If this wasn’t marketed as a sequel but rather as a story spin off version of the original, then it would’ve been received much more positively.
@@doctordice2doctordice210I don't feel like that is a problem, though.
If you sell it, people buy it.
@@doctordice2doctordice210mods should never be an excuse because not everybody is comfortable in using them and they are obviously not cannon unless redhook says so
@@freddamian1019 WTF. Mods are awesome and can greatly extend the enjoyment people get from a game. It does not matter about canon and as long as the person is willing to try mods are not hard to get working.
I used to hate DD2 with a passion when I played it right after launch. I kept missing the old features of the game and after 3 failed runs against the Act 3 boss I decided to just quit DD2 and play Black Reliquary.
After a year since DD2 launch I decided to play it again and I enjoyed it a ton. Red Hook balanced out the heroes and the bosses and the game felt a lot more fun. After 130 hours in DD2 and 300~ in DD1 + Black Reliquary, I'd say DD2 is a lot better than DD1 for these two reasons:
1) The token combat system in DD2 offers a lot of counter-play to the randomness in DD.
Once you know how to provision, what heroes go in which dungeon and how each boss is suppose to be fought, most of DD1's difficulty comes from the randomness in fights. Will I miss my attack? Will the enemy crit? Will this hero get focus fired? All of it is inherently random and yes while you are able to predict some outcomes in certain situations, most of the time it is completely based off of a dice roll. While it is tense, there is little to no counter-play unless you have an extremely safe team.
Yes DD2 still has this randomness in the fights, but the tokens being there make it so that these dice rolls aren't impacting you the exact moment the dice is rolled. Allowing the player to decide how to deal with the unlucky dice roll.
For example, the main damage dealer in the enemy team used an ability that gave them a CRIT token. The crit didn't happen this turn so your team has to have an answer to it or else they will eat a fat crit. There are multiple ways to make sure that doesn't happen. Highwayman could steal the crit token. Plague Doctor could shuffle the enemy out of position. Man-at-arms can daze the enemy and your team can focus fire it before it can attack. Crusader can give the team a block token. Leper can taunt and give the enemy a weaken token. You can use a combat item that can also blind, shuffle, taunt and block.
Combat is the main appeal of the game and combat being this more dynamic in DD2 makes the overall game experience way more enjoyable.
2) The rouge like change made decisions more impactful and difficult.
In DD1 aside from your first run in a dungeon or first time fighting a boss, most of it is very stale. Once you know how the game works most of the decisions boil down to: use this trinket since its broken, use these provisions for maximum loot and survivability, use these heroes here since their skills and stats are good in this dungeon, loot this curio with this provision as its gives the best result. Once you know how to fight each dungeon and how to deal with each boss, the decisions you have to make aren't difficult at all. Its all rinse and repeat until your characters are skilled enough to fight in the DD.
In DD2 every decision you make requires some amount of thought whether its your 10th hour of play or your 100th. What should I buy from the first inn? What region do I go to first? Should I save up for the hoarder? Should I prioritize loot, flame or relationship? What lair boss should I fight? Should I visit the hospital or the oasis?
Because of all these random factors and the fact that you start with basically nothing every run, the "best" decision is never clear at all. Your priorities vary every single run depending on what your team is currently lacking and what opportunities are given in the regions. This makes awareness and knowledge a lot more rewarding compared to DD1.
Regarding everything else like progression, graphics, UI, story and what not, I don't think there is too much difference in quality between the two.
DD2 has animated backgrounds, full 3D characters and animated attacks, and a modern UI.
DD1's story felt more important.
Progression between the two is mostly the same. DD1 has the hamlet, DD2 has the alter of hope. DD1 has resolve 6 heroes, DD2 has 5 memory heroes. DD1 you defeat the same bosses in the same dungeons 3 times per difficulty, DD2 you play the same 4 regions until you beat the 5 confession bosses.
With all of this in mind, I have no idea why DD2 gets so much hate from DD1 fans. The game changed into a rouge-like but the core mechanics and design got a 1 to 1 upgrade. I honestly hope its not just nostalgia talking as I really don't see any other complaint that isn't that.
Thanks for reading this far and if you disagree with me, I would love to hear what you think.
@Farendalelol ok
@Farendaleit’s coming out on PlayStation in five days and soon on other consoles. It’s about to get even more to its audience so really no the damage hasn’t been done.
After playing dd2 and seeing dd1 purist haters who lack understanding bashing it... I can never find myself going back to dd1 in the same way. Each run in dd2 is unique. Then most dd1 purist hating 90% are not playing vanilla it's uberly modded, or playing black reliquary. Yet completion rate 15% finished dd2 while we still sitting at 5% for dd1. It's more fun , has all the roller coaster of emotions. The story dd1 one is just the estate while dd2 focus of the kingdom beyond the estate and the story of the heroes. Whoever says dd2 story is lacking then you really not paying attention to the story beats
@Farendale we dont really know about that
I haven't tried dd2 yet, well only once during prerelease while visiting a friend in his house, but I found interesting some mechanics like the monsters now having deaths door checks. I want to give it a try soon, this video and your comment made me want to play it a little more.
DD2 is good, but DD1 is just amazing! i kinda dropped DD2 after about 20h and didnt bother to come back but DD1 i ALWAYS find myself craving replaying it
True same
One of the things i feel weighing 2 down is run length.
In DD1 i could boot up on my switch and take my c team on a short mission and itd be complete really quick.
While i always feel i need a few hours to sit for every session of dd2.
You don't have to complete an entire run at one time lol. Just do a region and stop
I work a job where I have to sleep overnight at the workplace (it's a care job, I look after people)
When my clients are all in bed and I've done my writing I play my switch for like 20 minutes. Both games are perfect for small sessions
I actually really like both games.
I actually dont think the new graphics have improved the game at all.
The first game was quite immersive with its 'choppy' graphics, and it made sense given how the combat is fundamentally simple, with turn base and no movemet.
The combat of the second one feels goofy, in part due to the higher graphics and 3d.
Yes! Cheap-ish 3D graphics just look bad. The animations, the way the monsters and people move doesn't feel real, it feels off. Like they have no weight and always move exactly in the same way, which is fine for a simplistic style, not so much in a realistic one. A real person doesn't do everything with the exact same motion.
The game still only looks at everything from one side. The world still feels 2D, but the people in fron semi 3D. Once again, it feels like it doesn't match.
I never understood the obsession with 3D in games where it doesn't help.
The visuals of the first game where not about fidelity or animations. They were about the setting and tone. And it did a fantastic job. Why change that? Why invest so much work and money into something that wasn't that important?
Also, mods ... One can provide easy modding for a 2D engine. The first game is partially so amazing and long lived, because it has amazing mods. That goes all out the window with the second game.
@@LipziG3R Could not agree more with the points you made!
@@LipziG3Rok
amazing video I must say with beautiful transition, gg man
I dunno, to me the first game's 2d sprites look much better than the 3d models. It might be related to how they move, to how choppy it is, or something of that style, I'm not so sure.
It's a bit like Warhammer's (fantasy or 40k) artwork, where some of the art looks very well-made and competent, it does not inspire the same as some insane-looking stuff by John Blanche or Ian Miller.
The animations are very strange, yeah. They're a bit too, idk, enthusiastic? Like everyone is doing the combat bounce like they're throwing it down on the dance floor. It throws the whole vibe of combat off because the game is trying to be gritty, but their animations look more like they're having fun than being tense. Less overall movement would do a lot, in addition to some emphasis on their weaponry.
finished both but i come back to darkest dungeon 1 rather than 2
bro this video was so well made
12:42 In my every attempt, Raynauld falls in love with Dismas 💀
Good
My true problem with DD2 is that, It can't sell me the same atmosphere of DD1. Driving on a dark road with no possible backup or help is scary as hell, and the game is unable to make me feel fear and dread like the real deal or as DD1. Just thinking about walking in the Weald or the Warrens. I already drove in fucked places, no internet, no backup, no one to pass by and help in Brazil, It is as scary as you can imagine.
Crips versus Bloods
I’ve enjoyed how well this review has been split in its talking points very well structured
Great video I think the thing I appreciate most about DD2 is the shift to a more positive and morally 'good' story (to some extent). While I confess some mixed feelings towards DD2 in gameplay its a great game
I tell people this all the time. Darkest dungeon 1 has way more in common with xcom than it does any roguelike, and actually trying to change that for 2 is a large part of why it didn't do so well
💯 exactly. They took a strategy game & gave the units “relationships” & little stories 😂
@@scarletsletter4466 That's good. The characters seems more real than in the first.
This comment makes zero sense lol
I just can't find a single redeeming quality about darkest dungeon 2. To me it's a down step in every single way. And despite being a bit of a graphics snob, I actually liked the previous Style more. I liked the comic animations, and the smaller characters, which is quite a surprise to me.
The new style is also very nice, looking, I just prefer the old version.
darkest dungeon 2 seems more like a fangame then a actual sequel, a good fangame, but still just a fangame
the change in engine is really felt, imo DD1 ran better, and the art had more charm. I'm still undecided whether I regret my purchase or not, it's definitely not what I expected
I'm tempted to buy either one but I'm honestly not sure I'd be able to stick with them without looking at a game guide or getting a headache.
13:06 That transition is awesome. What track did you use for that section?
After playing for 10+ hours, the main problem I have with DD2 is the repetition feels much like a grind rather than progression
Would be nice if you could voluntarily end the run at any point and somehow keep one of your heroes for the next, so you are emotionally invested with an actual benefit when progressing
You can stop at every Inn.
DD2 lacks tension. I can't understand how the same creators missed the point of the first game so much. The strenght of the first wasn't the atmosphere, the art or the gameplay(even though they are also really good) the strong point was "loss of progression", the fear, the overconfidence is the most insidious killer. Getting partywiped, losing your best mercs, getting cursed are all permanent you upgrade the hamlet, you get trinkets (that you can lose)but you are the same you just progress from 0 faster, losing is shit you fear losing, you don't "just start a run" you prepare for a run. That was the fun and looking at dd1 dlcs like crimson court i thought developer understood since they doubled down on punishment
That's your point of view. But they choose another.
@@louisvainet-1788 well seems like they chose poor XD
@@wackpendejo3000 I don't it's poor, it's just different.
Hey, uh...I loved your game comparison and review, if you are accepting any requests or something, I'd love to hear you about "Salt and Sanctuary" and "Salt and Sacrifice", but just if you're willing to. Again, nice review, made want to play DD again and DD2
I don't know why that changed so much. I personally don't mind making it more accessible but i prefer the tone of DD1 before Color Od Madness. Im not a huge fan of the Sci Fi nearly as much.
All they needed to do was upgrade the graphics and make it more accessible to casuals and i would have bought it in a heartbeat. DD2 just doesn't look good to me.
It’s a totally different game. Most of us who liked the tactical aspects of DD1, it’s a micromgmt game where progression is about using different categories of units to upgrade a hamlet/ town. DD2 gives stories to the units 😂 I’m sorry it’s just… a very different game. It’s possible to like both but from what I’ve seen, most ppl who like 1 don’t like 2 very much, & vice versa.
@@scarletsletter4466 That is the risk of running a game as a sequel to an established game.
A sequel is inherently promising 'more of the same', maybe not in every way but in some manner. That promise lets you keep the audience from the first game interested but the cost is that if you deviate too much you risk a backlash due to it.
DD2 seems to have deviated to the extent where the audiences of each game don't overlap for each game resulting in the current situation where DD1 has a notably more active playerbase (at least on steam) despite DD2 only releasing a year and a bit ago.
My party in DD was 4 Crusaders....you can imagine how I felt after firing up DD2..After an hour I got my refund
Lmao yeah it's fun making crazy quad parties, can't do that in part 2 where everything is more streamlined.
Slight correction: you needn't beat all the bosses in DD1 to take on the final area in DD2. You can even send four fresh recruits in right off the bat.
DD2 is a game totally dependant from his predecesor. Imagine if DD2 was the first game, what kind of involvement can you get from that game? None. Your desicions doesn`t matter, if you die you restart with the same char and that`s all.
Not sure which one I like better, but I think they're both masterpieces in game design and presentation. I'm glad they're different so I still feel compelled to enjoy them both.
I really liked the graphics for DD1 and there were so many mods for more charakters
Absolutely excellent video, well researched, fair and well produced. The exact thing i was looking for.
Darkest Dungeon 2 is not what Darkest Dungeon fans wanted, I can tell you that, I gaved up on Darkest Dungeon 2 since it's just grindy and tedious experience that makes it very boring, they adapted slay the spire system and didn't bring anything new and make the gameplay loop a boring and slow grindfest.
Huge miss in my opinion.
I love DD1 & Slay the Spire. I wish I could get into DD2 but I just find it so… not engaging. Idk. 🤷🏼♀️ I guess I’ll keep playing bc maybe it’ll get better
"and didn't bring anything new"
That's just false.
"grindy and tedious experience that makes it very boring"
says a DD1 diehard
The 1st game is a classic, almost a masterpiece.
The 2nd... well, considerbly good at least. Nothing more.
Dd2 has great potential, the bosses were just unfair until you meta progress and then they are too easy.
I died like 4 times or more to the first boss and then every following run was a victory on the following boss until I just beat the game.
Also the progression wasn’t fun nor long enough, and although you progress the enemies do not. Just the boss changes to a new one.
But the characters and the skill interactions were good, a run took an amount of time not too long, not too short. Camp system was good, not enough item variety.
Parmadeath wasn’t as meaningful because it was only a per run basis.
I really feel like they were on to something with this game but either lost the vision they set out to create or simply did not give it enough time to be built into something as great as dd1.
I really enjoyed the game which is why it really felt like there was so much potential they were able to create but not capitalize on. If they could make the balancing more dynamic, add some content, more item and enemy variety, and tinker the progression to be more rewarding, I think it could really be the game that it feels like it should’ve been. The game is finished but it feels like they only scratched the surface of what they could have created.
And I haven’t played it since release but it didn’t have much content, whereas dd1 is so damn long that despite the fact I have come back to it so many times over the years I still haven’t seen the darkest dungeon even once 😂.
I prefer DD2. You focus on the party you want to use instead of having to grind for levels/upgrades to get the 4 best while you juggle sanity which your favorite hero is insane you have to spend two runs and money just to lower their sanity. People complain on the travel yet when you explore a big dungeon is a long travel pressing right until you backtrack to the place you need to get. Personally i like the hope and more heroic theme of the heroes
Completely agree. They are very different games, and in my opinion, DD2 is more enjoyable.
Never finished the first game (not yet at least) and I feel you completely with the having to spend multiple runs and thousands of coin to recooperate my main set of heroes while sending off people I don’t care about to sustain them. Dd2 feels a lot better since I always gain something from my failures
I remember seeing the second one and being like, "aw man... I liked the tiny cartoon looking characters...😕"
DD1 combat was better. The unreliable RNG was the soul and spirit of the game. Once had a Houndmaster survive Death's Door for what had to be like twenty turns, tanking HUGE shots. He then got an inspiration and took out the boss. I was one of my all time favorite gaming experiences. I had none of that playing DD2.
Yeah, it removes both the highs and the lows from the experience. Now you just end up with a muddy middle way that isn't as exciting.
Sure, it absolutely hurts to lose a character in 1. It can be devastating. But the highs are also some of the most intense experiences I've ever had in a game. It gives you a rush that the second just can't give you.
And that doesn't work with this incredibly dark setting. It works so well in 1 because it actually is that dark. It actually is that devastating but you can be that glimmer of hope and light. In 2? Well, who cares ... just do another run. The world is dark and gloomy, but ... just start new, the characters don't ever die, anyways.
@@LipziG3Ryeah it's much more streamlined, just not the same.
The dd2 style is cool, but I think I still prefer the 2D art of the original
i like DD1 cuz its more for niche fans, dd2 goes for its wider audience, DD1 has better modding, dd2 dont even have steam workshop
I feel like if Red Hook didn't call DD2 "DD2" people wouldn't be nearly as disappointed. Some sort of spinoff name wouldn't make people assume its a sequel, and have the mechanics of the first game + a bit extra. Or I could be wrong and people still wouldn't care for it as much as the first game, even if it had an entirely different name.
The differences between the two games remind me about the first two Dragon Age games, the first being an isometric RPG, the second being an action RPG (and the third one being a single player MMO). The changes in the DD2 coupled with several PR mistakes criplled the game so much that even today, with a Dlc just launched, more people are playing the first one than the sequel.
As you said, each game has its own kind of players but you didn't mention the main reason why the first game will outlive the sequel: mods.
Even before its launch, the first game had mods: monsters, characters and so on. It's why, today, the sequel seems to lack content, even the dlc, two characters, a new boss and that's it. For the first game, each Dlc characters brought with them new mechanics for the whole game. It's likely we will never see modding coming for the second game, first because of the unity scandal (and Unity are in deep need of money right now, they just fired one thousand employees) and because Red Hook would have to create a program to let modders mod the game. The problem is if this program can be used to mod another unity game, Red Hook could be sued for piracy... Second: Epic does not allow mods. Red Hook already switched their main selling platform between games, it will be really hard for them to go back on Steam with the same game. Third: only 10 members of RH, so a third of the studio, as announced in an interview, is working on DD2.
Today three overhaulls of the first game are in the works, sharing the same world. Imo, the first game will be like Skyrim, modded for years to come when the sequel is like Starfield: done. Even a contracted worker who created icons in the second game went to help the team of the Black Reliquary...
By making a game so different, they cut they fan base, by choosing Epic, they left the modding community behind and the games being so different, the modding community decide to stay focused on the first one because it has a bigger fanbase and is simpler to mod. Its why when the first game sold 16 millions units, the second barely managed to obtain 2.
All of this can be related to dragon age. Bioware went to Origin for the sequel, changed engines (which killed the modding) and changed the kind of game it was. It's stricly the same thing: they divided their fanbase. RH made an interview with the biggest streamer of DD2 and just obtained 13k views, even when they announced an expansion for next year. The cards are in their hands and i'm curious to see what will happen.
I'm a big fan of the first game and, as a PR teacher, i use the VG industry as examples because all my studients play VG. Red Hook made mistakes but, contrary to a lot of studio, made good decisions, as letting the Black Reliquary having its own steam page or letting the Iron Crown overhaull being created (at last for now). Their PR manager is way better than the ones at Bioware...
All your complaints are about modding and game engine...
You should do PR for Red Hook. One thing I've always thought Red Hook was missing was a good PR guy to make sure their second game was the same as their first game.
@@caljestah3823 I don't want the 2nd game to become just a 3d copy of the first. Pass on that
@@themobiusquadron if you say so... I waited and today, the second game stand by 880 players on steam while the first one is at 6k...
DD2 is dead while the first one stay as it was because of mods. I suppose you already moved on, as everyone that played DD2...
@@malcomyoung2240 I always return to dd2, no mods motivate me in playing dd1, do a few levels for nostalgia but besides that... is back to dd2. And last hero update began giving new strats to use with Audrey and Dismas.
Only thing that bothers me about DD2 is that I can't have Reynauld along with my Dismas. :c
Now you can
GOOD NEWS
Didnt know what to pick till I saw the first game was less then 10 dollars with DLC so that made my choice lel
To me DD2 isn't worse or better, it's just different. Which isn't inherently bad but didn't need to be when making the next installment of an already understood and good foundation.
do you ever reach a Dungeon at DD2? I always tought the carriage was just an intro but seems the whole game its in that damn carriage, I hate it.
This review needs more views!
1 was better in every single way but graphics. Even the difficulty curve was better.
DD1 has mods and is overall a superior game.
DD2 has no mods, lower modding potential and not even an official support. On top of that everything feels so random.
I played dd2 for a couple of hours, unistalled it and went back to dd1.
DD1 is better. Much better. DD2 is for the casual audience whereas DD1 is a more involved game that requires more thought
I tend towards that opinion as well, but I will make conclusive comparison on which is better in my Year In Review.
The thing is DD1 is a completely finished game with two DLCs, DD2 still has a long road to go. But atm I think DD1 is better, but DD2 has potential to be better
DD2 might be casual when compared to 1 but it still is a very hardcore game that pretty much only people that really dedicate themselves will beat.
@@caspermycat3646 Problem with DD2 is not really content, it's that the core gameplay loop was drastically changed.
Only thing I prefer about this game is the character models hard to go back to tiny characters.
I bought dd2 first day, but i just couldnt get into it since there no management gameplay loop. It was a step back to pure roguelike where you unlock things between runs regardless if you are successful. Its banging your head against a wall till it breaks vs a long continuous journey it feels like. They just now put out a campaign mode, and this feels like something they should have released with. Ill comtinue to revisit dd1 while ignoring dd2 till it feels finished 😂
Yeah, there's a reason DD1 sold 10x as many copies. Nobody wants to admit it, but DD2 was a lazy cash-grab. They threw together a quick release and accepted a bag of cash from Epic Games. I don't blame them - I would have done the same thing. A man's gotta eat! But let's not lie and pretend DD2 is anywhere nearly as masterfully crafted as DD1.
DD2 is a good game, but imo not a good darkest dungeon game
Which one do you prefer?
All we wanted was another DD1 but with the improved graphics from DD2.... why was that so hard to get?? How can you fail something so obvious... The developers failed miserably, may they never be forgiven.
That's NOT what everyone want. They should be forgiven because they take risk. If you want a 1.5 Darkest dungeon, there are DLC and Black Reliquary.
DD2 eliminates the frustration that was central to the themes and emotional engagement of the first game?
i haven't tried the 2nd game cus $, but sounds like i'll perfer game 1 by miles.
Loved the 1st game but I dislike the 2nd game so much I cannot even bring myself to play it. Waste of money wish I never got it.
It realllllly depends on the person they're enjoyable for different reasons the character stories in DD2 is amazing but the main story is much much weaker The second game has more consistent gameplay but DD1 was good because of it's inconsistency
I've only had about 30 hours in 2, but yeah... I dunno. I really don't think it's even gonna be comparable at this point
The first one actually felt much more fair in terms of difficulty. I beat it on stygian but I don't know if I'll be able to do it on 2
I think that there is a different learning curve than in the first.
I feel alone in that DD2 just feels like a WAY better game to me. Everything from the graphics, presentation, gameplay, characters, world and mechanics. I guess I didn't get hooked on DD like many people did, but it just felt clunky and hard to understand, DD2 is just as punishing but without all the clunky menus and towns.
The main difference between the games is that the grind in DD2 feels less rewarding than the grind in DD1. Otherwise, they are functionally the same game with minor differences in execution.
DD1 grind is upgrading your town and heroes and collecting trinkets, while DD2 grind is upgrading your wagon, unlocking stuff and getting to the point where you wiped last time just to try again.
I can like both games at the same time.
no, you have to chose.
@@Lonit-be then DD1 lol
@@casthedemon hahaha😂
To me you can’t really compare the to since there basic two different game genres
since a lot of people seem to disagree imma go against the current and say that i like dd2 much more than dd1. it's not a thing of the second game being for newbies or it being simplified (i would challenge anybody here to complete a grand slam without losing their minds), it's just that i like roguelites more and the structure of the game is more suited for me. if the game isn't fun for you that's fine just don't expect a dd 1.5 when jumping in the second game.
I think it would be fun if DD3 ended up being an ARPG Rouge-like with top down combat and co-op
Both games are good, they are just very different
So brave❤
8:11
Ooof. I'd better get this game before the devs go bankrupt from installs :/
Hopefully they can migrate to Godot!
I love how slick the animation is. Like, the Occultist smoothly sheathing that dagger really DOES IT fur me
uh… yeah, that ain’t happening anymore. heck, i don’t think that was still a thing when you wrote that. they fired their CEO and reneged on the whole idea
@@mkv2718That whole debacle was absolutely nuts. Sure greed knows no bounds and all, but that wasn’t just greedy, it was beyond moronic. I’m still friggin’ stunlocked thinking about the whole situation…
@@snaggiz as far as I know they were never gonna get away with it because they couldn't change an already signed contract.
Godot sucks
Godot scks, it's woke now.
DD2 looks awesome i just bought it :D
9:10 you mentioned the UI, the UI for DD2 is regarded as one of the biggest travesties of the whole thing, and yet you mention that it makes it more accessible... No, it doesn't there's 20 menus in the inn for no absolute reason, it could all have been done with 2 or 3 menus, that's just one of the huge issues with the UI/UX/HUD
DD1 vs DD2 vs darkest dungeon: the board game
A good honest comparison of the two games. much like the heroes, neither of the games are outright bad just different
1 boss per area sucks. Thats dd2s only weakness in my eyes
DD1 sold 2mio. and DD2 sold 500k
After playing each game for 5 minutes it's immediately clear why.
That's why I don't understand how devs can be like oh people like our game let's make a new one a change everything. I will never understand it.
I was really disapointed by Darkest Dungeon 2
Very helpful ty !
I keep seeing this same problem plaguing rogue-likes and resulting in abandonment of their core audience while offering very little appeal to other gamers . Devs seem to be getting this idea that they must allow players to complete a game eventually by making progression tied not to player skill but to stats.
For rogue-like fans this removes the sense of achievement because it enforces a "lose to win" loop where the gane gets easier over time and for everyone else they recognise the title as a treadmill rather than a game. And you notice I keep referring to these two distinct groups and that is because when you look at discussions over the pros and cons of various rogue-likes you see two clear attitudes - those who expect to win and those who expect to lose.
The rogue fans want for the game to be beatable on the very first run not to have multiple runs become mandatory. Meanwhile the more casual gamers have little tolerance for being sent back to square one. That dichotomy of expectation can only be addressed by an opt-in meta progression system that is designed in such a way that isn't nessersary to engage with it to finish the game. This shift for DD2 actually moves it further away from the rogue-like formula towards a more modern RPG where you're not "making the best of a bad situation" but rather doing team building with minimal need for creative thinking.
Isn't 'lose to win' one of the defining features of the metaprogression stage of a roguelike? Then once the metaprogression is complete you're left with a balanced but still challenging game.
This is exactly right. If you look at a game like Slay the Spire which one could call a perfect example of the genre- you can win from the very first run. Yes, you unlock more cards, but none of the unlocks are necessary to beat the run. You don’t need to lose runs til you unlock all the cards. If you know how to play, you can win all the way from zero to Ascension 20.
DD1 was more of a strategy/ micro mgmt game whereas DD2 is trying to be a roguelike. But as OP says, it’s definitely more of the “treadmill” type where you’ve gotta lose for a while. I’ve not enjoyed my time with it yet but I’m hopeful it’ll get better… since I already paid for it 😂
I really enjoy 2 more. I like both games and I can play either which is cool but I always find myself playing 2. It's easier to play for shorter periods of time and also easier to come back to after a long time of not playing without feeling mixed up. Plus it looks way cooler which is awesome to me.
Much harder to get into than first one. You dont understand any symbols and what they do, not a fan
I don’t have the time or patience for the first game,and I’m not smart enough to optimize correctly,so I like the second one more
That's a very fair thought process, games are supposed to be for fun after all.
Darkest Dungeon II breaks my heart. I despise every single change from the first game, especially the ugly 3D graphics.
Thank you
I like difficulty in my games. I love Sekiro and Elden Ring for that reason, but what I vehemently dislike is punishing games. I have no problem bashing my head against a wall until I learn to overcome it, but I am not okay with losing half or all of my progress in a game when I fail. I really liked the original Darkest Dungeon, but I never finished it. I tried the last dungeon and my party wiped... I would have no problem trying again, but I would have to level up a new squad of heroes, equip them and that was just way too much work to just try again.
Yeah I put upwards to 100 hours into that run but after I ran out of resolve 6 heroes to attempt the Darkest Dungeon with it just felt like a chore than a challenge
I have 277 Steam hours played on Darkest Dungeon 1. I refunded DD2 after 45 minutes.
A lot of people like to be gentle and say, "DD2 isn't bad. It's just different!"
No, DD2 is bad.
DD1Just quit the game and restart it manually
Luck can change just hit that button close the program reload battle restart
I like them…. BOTH! Muahahahhaha
Way too many ads
That's just the state of UA-cam these days
I would not call 3D an "upgrade."
Ok. But I do.
@@louisvainet-1788 Nobody asked.
@@dn7949 Same to you. Who give a **** about what you call an upgrade ?
Just wanted to show the absurd of the situation.
@@louisvainet-1788 Because I didn't buy the game. I'm pretty sure the developers care.
@@louisvainet-1788make your own comment dropping your opinion control your hormones pal.
suck i cant run the game in my laptop kinda wish they made games for low spec pc
These days you should probably also compare what the mod communities are like for each game. They make a HUGE difference.
As an avid modder myself, I will be covering modding a lot in the upcoming year in review.
Man so many bad faith arguments from DD2 haters is really frustrating. Im convinced 90% of these comments about DD2 have either barely played the game or just don't understand it whatsoever
I never got into DD 1, its just so confusing with all these stats. Hard to read and the UI is really bad imo. DD 2 is a mich better game for me and if you want a real rougelike game, this is the one to go.
I think DD1 allows you to play and face challanges the way you want to. DD2 says how you are supposted to do things optimaly or suffer for not doing so. ( I know there is somehwat variety of choosing characters and their paths even tho some feel simply much better than the others, but there is no such thing at all with trinkets. The game is much more reliant on RNG much more than the first one, and in the places where it shouldnt be. )
Nice. Thanks.
DD 1 is by far the superior game. Not even close.
Absolutely loved the first game. The second game is a huge disappointment. It's like they went out of their way to dumb it down, and the whole stagecoach thing... it was just a bad idea. It's so incredibly silly as a concept, not dark or frightening at all... and there's NO FREAKING DUNGEONS.