I never said it was bad nor do I hate it. I'm simply let down by dome decisions they made. On my second playthrough on NG+ after reaclimitizing myself to the game I enjoyed it well enough, won't ever be able to beat the final boss without cheese but I'm okay with that, I'm not good enough and my bad all the same, I simply wasn't in form when I played it first nor was a prepared for end game content and I see now the mistake was with me and not the game.

What's your deal with DS 2? 

Couldn't beat them. So I respect for a bleed build, used Bloodfiend Blood Arm with bleed infusion. 80 ARC and 70 STR

The damage output was mediocre, but the build proc did the job and I've finally beaten them after one hour trying


I'll try again as a ranged sorcerer, but not in NG+2

Trust me you don't want me to get too in the weeds about DS2, but what it boils down to is that the team that made it were basically making a fan game without understanding anything about the delicate balance of 'tough but (mostly) fair' that the Miyazaki games manage to achieve. There's a lot of good ideas executed poorly, too much of the design philosophy revolves around being cheap bullshit as opposed to fair, the hitboxes are utter trash, the DLC zones have some of the worst bosses and areas in the entire franchise, the runbacks are terrible, etc. 

I tried playing Dark souls 2 after playing bloodborne and absolutely hated it. didn't even get to the first boss. I assumed that was just because I was going from a faster game (Bloodborne) to a more sluggish game (DS2), but that wasn't the case. I played Dark souls 1, beat it, then returned to 2, and still felt it was more clunky and sluggish than DS1. Tried Dark souls 3, loved it, tried going back to Dark souls 2, still hated it. did Sekiro and Dark Souls Remastered, got all the platinum trophies, went back to DS2 and still hated it but forced myself to play through it because I had all the other games completed, it'd feel wrong if I didn't also complete Dark souls 2. 

The more I played it the more I hated it, which was the opposite of all the other games which I loved the more I played despite not falling in love my first run.

I even did a coop run with my roommates and refused to say anything negative about the game (if they turned out to like it I wasn't going to dampen their enjoyment; they were playing all the games alongside me and also completing the full set so if they liked it, so be it), and they came to the same conclusions about it being cheap bullshit instead of tough but fair. Bad bosses, bad design, bad animations, bad levels, etc. 

I could write a college thesis on all the ways that dark Souls 2 fundamentally misunderstands Miyazaki's Philosophy and failed at basic game design (it lacks refinement) and I came to most of these conclusions before knowing that Miyazaki didn't have anything to do with it. I came to hate it long before I even knew who Miyazaki was. all I knew was that I tried playing it multiple times and it always felt 'wrong' and it took me years (and getting platinum) to be able to elaborate on why that is/was.

it had some great ideas, but it was a bad game. 

As for the final boss of the DLC, I just tried a 'deflecting hard tear' build on him and absolutely bodied him multiple times. I saved my game to the cloud, fought him with the new strategy and a greatsword, and completely destroyed him a half dozen times. It took me three days to beat him the first time, and this time it took me an hour to beat him six times learning a whole new combat style. 

I got so good at fighting phase 1 I could get him to phase 2 in about 10 seconds depending on RNG with getting a stance break and some massive attacks. He is not easy but he is definitely doable. you CAN do it! 

who are you fighting? what did you mean by 'gay couple?'

Trust me you don't want me to get too in the weeds about DS2, but what it boils down to is that the team that made it were basically making a fan game without understanding anything about the delicate balance of 'tough but (mostly) fair' that the Miyazaki games manage to achieve. There's a lot of good ideas executed poorly, too much of the design philosophy revolves around being cheap bullshit as opposed to fair, the hitboxes are utter trash, the DLC zones have some of the worst bosses and areas in the entire franchise, the runbacks are terrible, etc. 

I tried playing Dark souls 2 after playing bloodborne and absolutely hated it. didn't even get to the first boss. I assumed that was just because I was going from a faster game (Bloodborne) to a more sluggish game (DS2), but that wasn't the case. I played Dark souls 1, beat it, then returned to 2, and still felt it was more clunky and sluggish than DS1. Tried Dark souls 3, loved it, tried going back to Dark souls 2, still hated it. did Sekiro and Dark Souls Remastered, got all the platinum trophies, went back to DS2 and still hated it but forced myself to play through it because I had all the other games completed, it'd feel wrong if I didn't also complete Dark souls 2. 

The more I played it the more I hated it, which was the opposite of all the other games which I loved the more I played despite not falling in love my first run.

I even did a coop run with my roommates and refused to say anything negative about the game (if they turned out to like it I wasn't going to dampen their enjoyment; they were playing all the games alongside me and also completing the full set so if they liked it, so be it), and they came to the same conclusions about it being cheap bullshit instead of tough but fair. Bad bosses, bad design, bad animations, bad levels, etc. 

I could write a college thesis on all the ways that dark Souls 2 fundamentally misunderstands Miyazaki's Philosophy and failed at basic game design (it lacks refinement) and I came to most of these conclusions before knowing that Miyazaki didn't have anything to do with it. I came to hate it long before I even knew who Miyazaki was. all I knew was that I tried playing it multiple times and it always felt 'wrong' and it took me years (and getting platinum) to be able to elaborate on why that is/was.

it had some great ideas, but it was a bad game. 

As for the final boss of the DLC, I just tried a 'deflecting hard tear' build on him and absolutely bodied him multiple times. I saved my game to the cloud, fought him with the new strategy and a greatsword, and completely destroyed him a half dozen times. It took me three days to beat him the first time, and this time it took me an hour to beat him six times learning a whole new combat style. 

I got so good at fighting phase 1 I could get him to phase 2 in about 10 seconds depending on RNG with getting a stance break and some massive attacks. He is not easy but he is definitely doable. you CAN do it! 

who are you fighting? what did you mean by 'gay couple?'

who are you fighting? what did you mean by 'gay couple?'

The final boss(es)

I didn't like DS2 when I first played it - so I quit fairly early in, After DS3, I was still itching for more, so I got back to DS2 Scholar of the First Sin edition. This time, something clicked, (maybe it was Scholar edition) and I loved it...so much that it's my favourite Souls (with all the problems it has, but which one really doesn't). Yes, people who find DS2 to be their favourite Souls are few, but there are some of us out there. ;)

They lost me around the point when they started spamming that Demon boss all over the route under town at that point I didn't know where they were going with it and then the bosses are baffingly difficult while you can almost one shot the pursuer with the ballista not long before that. I don't think they even knew what they were going for, why souls 1 worked and went with difficulty for difficulties sake rather than fine tuning difficulty. It's such an infuriating thing cause it has the souls goodness at it's core and you wanna love it but alas, a tragedy of decisions pile up the more you play the game. Happy to hear you found joy in it all the same.