izigame.me

Having recently noticed that, when it comes to PC, i only have DS2: Scholar edition, and that i've not played DS2 "vanilla" since it was released originally on the PS3 (and that i've only played through that version a couple of times) i've recently decided to replay it, after years of not touching this particular chapter in the Fromsoftware catalogue.
The first thing that strikes me is that...i legitimately think that, overall, this is a better version of the game compared to Scholar of the first sin.
Some annoyances that SOTFS added (like blocking tons of passages that you have to free using "fragrant branches of yore") still kinda baffle me.
Not only that, but while DS2 in general is well known to be the Souls game that, instead of designing interesting enemies just throws at you hordes of annoying mobs, i've noticed the enemy placement being way less annoying in the vanilla edition; something that i really didn't remember being this noticeable.
Various encounters are very different because of this, and many dynamics of the zones completely change how you go through them...for example the "pursuer" boss, in this version, is only encountered in his boss arena once, while in Scholar kinda stalks you throughout the game, appearing in various zones; while this addition was pretty cool, i definitely think that adding a ton of NPC invaders which simply waste a ton of your time, was a bit overboard.
Leaving behind the DS2 vs DS2:Scholar argument however, here is something that i think about both versions of the game:
DS2, while getting a lot of crap thrown at it, is still a really good game at the end of it..being the worst game that Fromsoftware has made since Demon's Souls isn't really that big of a sin, considering your competition are some of the best games ever made in their respective genre/gaming in general (Demon's Souls...Dark Souls 1-3..Bloodborne..Sekiro..Armored Core 6..Elden Ring..).
Therefore, when in the following paragraphs i talk about "annoyances", "ugliness" and other seemingly completely negative emotions, they are as such only as a direct comparison to the other games in the serie, and not as a judgement of the game being an abject failure from every point of comparison.
To start: here are some of the reasons i think contribute to give the game it's reputation (among others of course).
-Animations are visually smoother, but at the same time feel floaty, less responsive, and don't give you the same idea of control the other games give.
-Weapon movesets are...just boring. I have very little reason not to use the weapon with the highest damage when 80% of the other weapons in it's category have the same moveset.
-Enemies are not only often annoying, but have attacks that track you with a comedic amount of persistance: having a giant enemy with super thick armor being able to do 720° spins, as it charges it's overhead attack with it's feet planted in the ground...just sucks. I understand that they wanted to solve the problem of chain backstabbing both players and normal enemies that happened in DS1 and Demon's Souls..but this wasn't the way to do solve it.
-Character progression: ... i'll just say one word ... Adaptability. I understand the reason they included it, and i understand that it counterbalances the fact that Dexterity, in Dark Souls 1, was kinda necessary for spellcasting classes too .. but i don't think it was worth implementing it in this manner.
-Instead of having you face interesting and challenging mobs in small skirmishes, which is where the series shines in my opinion (some examples: Dark Souls 1's Black knights ... Sekiro's Ashina guards ... Bloodborne's snatchers ... Elden Ring's Godrick knights...) they too often put you up against 5+ enemies, and i fear that's because there is not a single normal enemy, in this game, that represents an interesting challenge when faced 1v1.
-Bosses: most of them i find just boring in the base game, with not a single one really impressing me; the DLCs, however, do add some very cool fights (Sir Alonne, Sinh and Ivory king above all)...unfortunately the DLCs also add a couple of the worst boss fights in the entire serie (Lud & Zallen, graverobbers and..the fact that they made you fight Smelter Demon again in a paid DLC).
-World building...this may be the worst tragedy of all imo. The world is, most of the time, just...ugly and uninteresting.
Areas look drab, the geography of the world has zero consistency, unlike the other games in the serie that made building a cohesive map one of the main attractions (there is a reason if souls players are still obsessed with OG Lordran all these years later). This is not helped by the fact that a ton of enemies, instead of epic and intimidating, just look goofy.
-Level design: nowhere near as convoluted, complex and magnificent as Dark Souls 1, and nowhere near as beautiful and interesting as Dark Souls 3... also Shrine of Amana is in this game and...brrrr...
-Lore (i know..cringey) let's point out an obvious fact.To this day, both the comunity and Fromsoftware...don't know what to make of Dark Souls 2..is it canon? Including the parts that didnt make sense? Is it NOT canon? Why, in the sequel, only a couple of items from this chapter are mentioned/appear and only a couple enemies are encountered (most of them being in the last DLC, "Ringed city")?
Even the people that study Dark Souls lore pretty much as a job (Vaati, ENB, Ashen Hollow, Eigon, Anri, Smough Town, Tarnished Archeologist etc etc) don't really know what to make of the whole thing..it introduces waaaay too much, and at the same time overexplains too much and explains too little.
Who are all these deities that, suddenly, we can devote ourselves to but are barely mentioned in the rest of the game? Why are the 3 "ex firekeepers" at the start? What actually is Things Betwixt? What is in actuality the role of the Fenito and Milfanito? etc etc could go on all day..
While we have found some answers that we can call satisfying and kind of conclusive, the search and investigation we've put into these topics as a comunity is nowhere near comparable to what we put into all other games, and unfortunately is probably because we were not interested enough collectively, and also because.. there really is barely a place where to start/be hinted at!
Meanwhile, when Dark Souls 1 came out, we all spent literal years pondering who in actuality was Gwyn's firstborn, and the research was fun because every little discovery could be linked to something else; the devs were smart enough to put real hints into everything and red hairings here and there, so everyone would come to his own conclusion regarding seemingly any topic..
It's so weird, because the fans have always been incredibly dedicated and serious, and yet due to a moltitude of reasons we seemingly came to the unspoken agreement that Dark Souls 2 is !!maybe!! canon.. so let's talk about it as little as possible, even tho it's the one with the most unique setting.
This among other things always made me feel like this should have been a spinoff-non numbered entry in the serie
These are my major gripes of a game that, in the end, i still very much like a lot believe it or not...however, i have to point out something that Dark Souls 2 implemented better than any other game without a doubt:
New game +, and the Bonfire ascetic system.
Bonfire ascetics not only are a brilliant system for variousreasons, but solved one of the main problems DS1 (and 3) had when it came to PVP, that being that defeating the area boss would prevent you from ever receiving invasions in that zone; using a bonfire ascetic solved that problem completely.
New game +, in these games, has always been the bare minimum in terms of what it delivers. Increased enemies health and damage...not very interesting.
Meanwhile in DS2 you have new enemies,weapons,boss mechanics,items reshuffled..amazing!!