I was actually a bit worried about this in DS2, because they said you could be invaded at any time. However, I've played through over half of it and have not been invaded once. The only time that it has happened was in the PVP areas such as the Bell Towers where members of the bell tower guild invade your game for even stepping foot into those areas. It was much more prevalent in DS1, probably because I've heard nothing good about the PVP in DS2. There's plenty of help to be had from allies, although doing so usually isn't worth the boss stat boost.

I agree a lot with what you said avatar. DS2's world is too disjointed with too many areas serving as in-between bonfire checkpoints on the path to plot bosses. You can easily tell the original level designers were not on this project. Also the fact that most NPCs migrate to Majula is pretty damning of the level design in my opinion. Couple that with confusing things like burning the windmill at the Earthen peak, illusion walls that open using multiple methods with no clear indication on which works, and keys to nowhere and I'm finding the levels are tedious to explore.

I'm not sure I agree about the game being more difficult. The majority of the frustration I've had is with this game's obsession with mobbing and kiting enemies down narrow corridors. But that may entirely be because I'm usually tired when playing so my patience level is much lower

Bosses are very uninspired, leaning heavily to the humanoid, that only require a simple roll under a signature big swing animation opening you up to attacking the back. Recently finished the spider Freja and that was the first great/tense battle.

So far it feels like Borderlands 2: a popular first game lead to a hyped sequel that ultimately dissatisfies because it is a less focused vision.

Zorb: I agree with much of what you say. Many of the bosses are uninspired. Some fights are of course epic, but too many are just some creatures swinging big swords/axes/halberds/etc at you. I personally like the fact that most NPCs migrate to Majula. In Dark Souls I most NPCs ended up near the primary bonfire, so I really don't see a difference. I do however feel that there was not enough interaction with the NPCs. While still an excellent game, it is not quite as grand as the first two. That said, I still highly recommend it. I would love to see a "cleaned-up" and expanded version of Dark Souls II for the PS4 or Xbox One (or the Wii U... heh, almost forgot that was a system)

Incredible! how did you beat the three ruin sentinels  by yourself?

I did as well and I feel like I was overpowered when I finally did beat them.  A shield with 100% physical absorption and a lot of stamina and patience is necessary.  You are basically blocking until you get the chance to strike once. Oh, and it's imperative to defeat the first one before dropping down.

Defeat the first one by attacking it from the back, heal as necessary. Wait until the second jumps up and do a little damage. When the third one shows up you need to drop down and play cat-and-mouse. Attack one when you can but quickly pull back. It will take a bit of time, but you can do it. Also, at this point you should use a sword+10 and have a decent shield. You may not have a shield with 100% physical block, but as long as it's 90+ you'll be OK.

i finished 2 playthroughs by now. first run i took all bosses down solo. second run was with help to keep the npc summons alive (trophies). so far, my clear goty.

The more I think about, the more I realize DS II just did not live up to my expectations. Still worth playing? yes. A masterpiece like the first two games? no. I would give it an 80/100. I was also listening to Return to Slumber on the Demon's Souls soundtrack, and I realized that the much applauded Shrine of Ammana music from DS II is just a bastardization of  this Demon's Souls piece. Ah well. Hopefully they'll get their act together for DS 3!

Anyone see all hell breaking loose over at gamespot?

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/dark-so … 0-6415748/

Both sides of this should be ashamed. Gamestop obviously posted that as click-bait but the fans just played right into their damn hands. Brilliant!

I don't really see how it's linkbait.  It's a fair and accurate assessment of the game and series and the fanboys are just too quick to dismiss him as casual

A fair and accurate assessment? No. It's one guys opinion and he's entitled to it. However, just because you agree with him does not make it "fair and accurate" and I think you're quick to call people who disagree with you "fanboys". Personally, I love the original Dark Souls. Nevertheless, I think Dark Souls II is a big step down, which is why I would rate it at 80%. It was still fun, just not magical like the first game. Also, the series was never meant to be a game that everyone should be able to get into. I think most gamers are used to games where the core of the game can be completed by "anyone", and then those that "love it" can finish all the hidden secrets. For example: Super Mario Galaxy. Some of the levels are a challenge, but the majority of players can finish the game. However, getting all the stars (or whatever it is) is very hard and tedious. Well, Dark Souls is hard from the get-go. In fact, it does get easier as you progress, rather than harder. Some people love it, some people hate it. Point is, it was never meant to be for "everyone", so I don't see why a "casual" player such as this reviewer is claiming to provide a comprehensive review. I agree wish Ashley. I'm sure Gamespot knew what they were doing, and wanted to wrangle up a bit of publicity. Either that, or they're really clueless.

This post is exactly how all the people in the comments are responding.  Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean it's an unfair and inaccurate assessment, either.  He's not a casual gamer, he just admitted he has never played the series and thought he should after hearing everyone rave about how good it is, and he's quoted as saying "so I felt prepared for the endless deaths and bleak setting." so he also knew what he was getting into.

Here is a quote that accurately sums up the entire game, in the second paragraph of the review:

"But an adherence to only pleasing its most hardcore fans at the expense of approachability makes for an unapologetically obtuse experience. It's a game that too often sacrifices fun, replaces it with tedium, and tries to defend that choice by calling it a challenge."

And that bold part is exactly what everyone who doesn't agree with this review is doing.  It doesn't matter if you're a "casual" or "hardcore" gamer (those labels are f---ing stupid to begin with), the second and third games suffer from serious *game development* issues. 

His 5/10 review is more accurate than you 8/10 review for all the reasons he stated at the bottom.  People who have played Demon Souls will have an inherently easier time picking up the systems (combat, upgrades, leveling) than someone who hasn't.  Review scales don't change based on whether you've played a previous game or not the same way movie reviews don't take into account seeing previous films or things they're adapted from.  You can watch the Lord of the Rings films as standalone movies and still review them based on their individual qualities.  The only thing that may suffer would be story and trying to understand the series as a whole, which again, if you look at Dark Souls, isn't an issue because Dark Souls has barely any story at all. 

It might be an 8/10 for you but as a general whole, the game is not an 8/10.  There are serious problems with the game that should have been resolved 3 games into a series but it's clear From has no interest in that.  They're clearly only interested in satisfying the niche market that this kind of game holds, and that's fine, but the review is a fair and accurate assessment of the game because the reviewers and review scores are not tied to constraints of that niche market or genre.

That's a good point. As for "casual" gamer, I don't mean someone that rarely picks up games, I meant someone that is "casually" going to play Dark Souls. I realize that may not be the actual definition of "casual gamer" (if there is an actual definition), but my point is this is a game you really have to invest time in if you want to progress. Also, I have to admit it sounds like he did quite a poor job of progressing in his 25 hours, and I am no way a "great" video game player.

You mean "accurately sums up the entire game" in YOUR opinion. You may find it tedium, but many other people really find it fun. Yes, I'll say it again, people find it fun, very fun. If you don't like it, no one is making you play the game.

I read his review, and at the end all he basically says is "Gee, maybe if I had done things differently it would have been better." That has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with personal opinion and speculation. At the end of the day, all you're saying is you agree with his review and not mine. I sense a lot of anger coming from you. I'm guessing you played Dark Souls and found it frustrating? Just because it's not a game for you, nor for this reviewer, nor for many others, does in no way imply that other people can not and should not enjoy the game.

By saying that, I think you either did not play Dark Souls through, or perhaps you approach games differently than I do. I for one, thought Dark Souls had an amazing story. The plot itself was really quite fantastic too, but the story and atmosphere really carried the game. The story was told in a very minimalistic way. If you're used to Japanese RPGs where the storyline is told like hammer blows over and over, just to make sure you know blah blah blah, then yeah, you might think Dark Souls has no story. If you're only happy with knowing that so-and-so married the princess and this other character went back to his tribe and yadda yadda, then yeah you're not going to be happy with Dark Souls. I personally find Dark Souls far richer than most games. The story is deep, and philosophical. In many ways also nihilistic, which is quite interesting. Few things are obvious, and much is left open to interpretation. I like art like that. If you don't like it, that is your opinion and you're welcome to it. As for the millions of Dark Souls fans, I think they're entitled to their opinion as well.

Seems avatar! beat me to it. Thanks for that as now I won't be over eager to say what I want to say.

I'm sorry, but this is click-bait five ways to Tuesday.

If this review was posed in tandem with the original review, or shortly after it, I wouldn't be so blunt with my decree. But they waited two months after the game was released to drop this bomb. Why exactly? Everybody, or more specifically, those who wanted to buy or try the game have probably done so by now. So, who was this review for? I'm sure you would say for those on the fence... or "casuals" (god the gamer *labels* need to DIE) but I just don't buy that. Sorry. When it comes to reviews and their message timing is everything and early bird gets the worm for a lot of people... somewhat regrettably.

And again, I'm not just pointing the finger at Gamespot. The DS community's reaction was so telegraphed it wasn't funny and pretty much points out what is wrong with gamers in general and why NO ONE outside of their gaggles takes them seriously. Best thing to do would have been to post nothing.

I'm not saying this because I like Dark Souls either. I've never touched a Dark Souls game in my life and to be honest they do not interest me. But when I read a review where someone is bellyaching over the fact that heavy gear makes you move slower (you know, like every game in existence) I honestly don't like what I'm smelling.

Honestly a lot of the comments to that thread make me want to call them "filthy hardcorerers" (and other less familily friendly terms but...)

It's bad enough when they say "go back to Angry Birds" or whatever but to say crap like he needs diapers or whatever? That's worse than anything the reviewer might have said.

He certainly brought up a number of points I've heard about the game/series from others, both those who do and don't like the game so he clearly wasn't fully off the mark. And as someone who regularly misses VERY obvious things I could easily relate to a lot of his issues even if most people wouldn't have had them.
I've played video games since I was five or so but yet somehow my enjoyment is invalid according to a lot of people...

Dude, I find it so ironic how "hardcore" gamers mention this game in insults like this. While they would never admit they probably (actually) feel pretty threatened by its existence since that's attention not being paid to them or their games of choice.

*sigh*

Really what happened to people

(Answer: The Internet)

Nope, but it certainly sounds like a lot of people are trying to force others to LIKE the game.
I really hate that age-old "if you don't like it don't play it" retort.
It's a dumb argument because you HAVE to play it in order to know you don't like it.

Some people don't like it, and they have the right to say so.
No one is trying to make you dislike the game here.

jb, I'm kinda on your side, dude, but you're arguing numbers here, which is completely vapid.
I mean "It might be an 8/10 for you but as a general whole, the game is not an 8/10." is a really really pointless thing to say, because:
A) You're making it sound like an objective statement, and
B) Scores are HIGHLY subjective

What IS an 8!? I mean, seriously, what IS AN EIGHT?
And who decided that this game "as a general whole" should or should not get one?
What does that even mean!?

You say wise things, avatar, but you fail to apply them to yourself.
Just because it's a game for you, doesn't mean it's for everyone else.
Even if a lot, or indeed the majority, of people love the game.
Neither side is wrong.

This reviewer guy didn't like it for what sounded like perfectly legitimate reasons to me.
Others love it for exactly those reasons, which is also perfectly valid.
Again, neither side is wrong here.

I think you just touched on the very core of the problem here, but again you fail to draw the right conclusion from it.
People approach games differently. Just because this reviewer, or jb, or ANYONE for that matter, does not agree with your approach (even if that is the approach of the majority!) does not make them wrong. And hey, your/the majority approach isn't wrong either!
People have different ideas of how video games should work and if a game does something they don't agree with, they're going to give it a low score, and that's PERFECTLY FINE because we all have different opinions. And remember: video game reviews ARE opinions.

This review did not read like click-bait to me at all: just a second opinion from someone who looks at things differently.
I think we could stand to have more of this in video game reviews.

*Pssst, Dark Souls IS a JRPG*

SHAMALANYAN SHOCKER!

And this IS Gamespot that is being discussed, so the validity of their opinions is debatable anyway.

No, tedium vs. fun has nothing to do with just bad game design. Designing a difficult game with a high difficulty floor is not a bad thing ("hardcore").  Designing a game with a low difficulty ceiling is not a bad thing ("casual").  Designing a difficult game that essentially throws you into the game with very little tutorial, guidance or instruction other than "well, if you've played the first two games then you should know what you're doing" is bad game design.

No, at the end of the day his frustrations and lack of understanding comes directly from the poor game design and lack of any substantive instruction in the game, which he elaborated on in the review and I happen to agree with.  ".. if I had done things differently, it would have been better" is not speculation and personal opinion, it's him making bad choices because the game doesn't clearly explain said choices or the consequences of them.  Having to use a wiki as a resource is fine, but as a mandatory resource is again, bad game design.

No on both assumptions.  I played Demon Souls through at least 5 NG+.  I played enough Dark Souls to realize it's the same game and didn't really have enough to hold my interest.

Also:

If by "every game in existence" you mean "no game in existence anymore except for Elder Scrolls games or games designed on strict D&D rules", then yes.  Games don't make you move slower when you wear heavy armor anymore, it's dated and stupid as f---.  Sure, it's realistic and accurate but nobody ever wants to be hindered and slowed down by making gear choices.  It's terrible game design.  If you want to use heavy armor or 2 handed swords and there's some penalty to your stats, like less agility or dodge or maybe your combat speed or attack speed is slower than more nimble characters, that's fine.  But making you actually move slower is a completely unnecessary penalty and something that has been annoying going back all the way to Ultima games.  It is not completely unreasonable to ask why the f--- this still exists in games, or be surprised when it does.

*edit* Ironically, here's an upcoming patch note for Diablo III, where Blizzard is removing the movement penalty from Crusaders for wielding a 2H weapon in a 1H weapon slot (that's one of their "perks").

Heavenly Strength You can wield a two-handed weapon in your main hand while bearing a shield in your off hand. (No longer has a Movement Speed penalty)

Everyone hated it.

I think this will be my last post on this particular aspect of Dark Souls II. Some people don't like it so be it. Other do, so be it.

Your argument could apply to almost anything. Maybe someone hates hamburgers. Doesn't it sound silly to say "try this hamburger because you HAVE to try it in order to know you don't like it".  Likewise I'm 99% certain I won't like the newest Call of Duty game or the newest Halo. I haven't played them, but I tried some of the older titles and certainly did not like them. In fact, I typically don't like FPSs, so it's logical to not waste time and effort on them.

Actually, I most certainly did say that
Many people have said that Dark Souls is not for everyone. I would go so far as to say even the vast majority of positive reviews say that the series is not for everyone nor even for most players.

IF, this was someone's personal blog, sure. However, this was printed in Gamespot. As Ashley pointed out, Dark Souls II has been out for months. The game has received critical acclaim from almost all major publications. Why is this review just being thrust out now? Again, as Ashley pointed out, almost certainly to just raise a ruckus and get people to visit Gamespot. It's publicity. It's not about good journalism, just publicity.  Yes, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Still, if you're reading a review of a game, you probably want someone who is into the genre, someone who has played the other games. Does that not make sense? It should. For example: I don't like Halo. I don't like FPSs. Would it be fair for me to review the newest Halo game? I would argue no. I'm entitled to my opinion, but a better judge of the game would be someone who's familiar with the franchise, the genre, and has much more experience. That's why professional reviews are supposed to be done by "professionals" -they are supposed to be familiar with the products and have knowledge a "layman" does not. Clearly, that's far from the case here.

Oh, I know!
That doesn't change my point which is that most JRPGs slam the storyline in your face while Dark Souls is esoteric.

If you are going to quote something I said/typed, can you make sure my user name is in the header? Makes it a lot easier to pick out what I have to respond to. Thanks.

If you cba to read the entire conversation than I cba to add your name to quotes from large, multi quoted replies. Sorry not sorry.

I have to admit it took me a while before I figured out what "cba" stands for.

Actually, it's called balance.  In a game without set classes, there needs to be some system in place to create classes out of one's gear. I'm sure you could argue against that, but if you are playing it connected to the internet and everyone had the same run speed, then heavy armor giants would be unstoppable for someone relying on speed or magic.

However, there are other things that are valid complaints about the game, and the quote from the article that jb already brought up that struck me most was "unapologetically obtuse".  Especially in an age without real manuals, in a series with little dialogue or narrative, things as simple as being told to pick a gift when you start the game without knowing what any of them do, seems like a real slap in the face to players.  Also, while I thought having the possibility of invasion added to urgency in some areas, I wanted to be able to disable messages... there was no option, nor any option in-game to not play in online mode as far as I noticed.  The jumping is broken... for a long while into the game I think this was my number one cause of death.

I wanted to say something along these lines. This "aged" mechanic probably serves more use in Dark Souls II than it does in the older games I'm referencing. For example a character's agility rating can pretty important in something like Breath of Fire III... but at the same time it isn't (save for one character) because there are some pretty wide (e.g. gaping) holes in the gameplay systems to exploit. Seriously, the game is easy enough, but if you put Rei in front of  the battle formation with the Chain Formation you can get a little too happy with the EX turns. Having six turns to a bosses one is pretty broken.

Reviews are opinions. They only parts of them that can be accurate or inaccurate are the parts concerned with facts. For example, if the reviewer says "Dark Souls II is a video game" that would be an accurate statement. If a reviewer says that "Dark Souls II was developed by Square Enix" that would be inaccurate. Opinions, I'm afraid, are neither accurate nor inaccurate. So long as the reviewer has the facts right, his opinions can't be inaccurate just because you disagree with them.

There's also no reason to get bent out of shape just because a reviewer didn't like a game as much as you did. He's entitled to his opinion, and you're entitled to yours. His not liking the game doesn't impact your ability to enjoy the game, nor is it a mark against your pride or culture. It's just his opinion. If you disagree, write your own review of the game and publish it on your blog, but keep it about why you like the game and why you think the things he criticizes the game for don't take away from the experience, and not about why you think he's a horrible person for not liking the game.

As the intro to the piece clearly states, GameSpot posted this second review to give readers an alternate opinion to the previously published featured review which scored the game highly. More opinions are always welcome. Diverse perspectives help us appreciate and have a better understanding of the things we love, even if those things aren't loved by everyone else.

Apparently From is releasing 3 DLCs. Or one. I'm not sure, but DLCs are coming. Can't say I'm particularly excited, although I do have some interest. In particular I want to know if it will be more like DS I or II? I think this article for the most part summarizes my feelings:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/19/581537 … ns-trouble

To be honest while I'm not interested myself releasing DLC at this stage seems kind of... odd to me. Seems a little too late in the game. DLC for games usually comes around a lot sooner than this.

I wonder if this DLC is supposed to be in-game or perhaps post-game? I think post-game makes more sense, but who knows.

True. The context of the DLC would probably help us decide what to make of it.

Alright, so I've been playing for about 6 hours. Soul level 40 with a huge emphasis on my Adaptability stat. Swordswoman class.

When I went through Dark Souls, I never switched out my initial equipment for stronger gear, and as such truly had to get used to parrying and dodge-rolling. This seems to have conditioned me for success so far in Dark Souls II; I've almost cleared No-Man's Wharf, and have died less than 20 times.

Despite everyone billing the game as more difficult than it's predecessor, in many ways, I find it actually easier! Regaining humanity is far simpler, as is enchanting your weapons. Enemies stop respawning after a while, which is good for new players, I suppose, but I loved grinding for souls in DaS; Nothing felt better than finally building up enough souls to get your STR up to finally use that bitchin' sword you found a few hours ago.

There's a difference in tonality that I'm noting. Dark Souls felt a lot more lonely, desolate. The oppressive atmosphere was thick with dread. Nothing instilled fear in me than those fog gates. It's probably because I played so much DaS1, but I really haven't gotten that anywhere in DaS2.