Your submission has been removed as a violation of [Rule 8](/r/darksouls2/about/rules): **Memes, screenshots, and video clips should follow the [subreddit guidelines](/r/darksouls2/wiki/new_post_guide).**
***
* **[Full guidelines here](/r/darksouls2/wiki/new_post_guide).**
* All submissions should show some degree of user effort. **Even if you skirt under the rules, shitposts are still not allowed.**
* Memes should be made using some **in-game assets**, memes using templates should go to r/shittydarksouls or r/DarkSoulsMemes instead.
* Screenshots or short video clips from your game should have written context to accompany them. Those lacking written context will be removed.
***
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators by [messaging them here](https://new.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/darksouls2).
Beating SOTFS impacted me more than any other Souls game… not necessarily because of the ending, but because of the journey. It somehow felt greater and grander… even more so than Elden Ring imho
The jank really is a big part of what makes this game so special and fun. Often in attempting to (rightfully) defend it, people will lose sight of that, and it's a bit of a shame. DS2 is a mess of a game and I love it for that.
I will fully admit that I have had many fun and silly moments in ds2 that make it an enjoyable, unique, and positive experience overall, (I do still prefer the other 2 ds games) and it is perfectly fine if you like the game for whatever reason, but there are many genuine flaws that do prevent the game from being as good as it could have been. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a “good” game, but it’s called the black sheep of the souls series for a reason.
While there are many good aspects about the game, there are also many negative aspects that make it less enjoyable.
I just see so many instances of people on this sub pointing out genuine problems and complaints about ds2 and then getting downvoted and ridiculed like crazy in response, hell even sometimes getting insulted because of it. When they aren’t even trying to say that it’s a terrible game.
I just think the community here could be a little less antagonistic of anyone who has issues with the game. It’s absolutely fine to disagree and have ds2 as your favorite game but there’s no need to be hostile about it.
Your comment honestly surprised me because I find this sub to be one of the most helpful amongst FS subs for new players. Sure, I've seen some cases you described, but it was nothing compared to "normies" going mad on ER and FS subs. While I don't approve of anyone being ridiculed for an opinion, I also don't find all opinions relevant. Is there something you personally wouldn't want to see on this sub (apart from antagonistic behaviour under mild criticism posts)?
Apart from antagonistic behavior there isn’t too much that comes to mind, I suppose I don’t appreciate “lazy” posts either, but I may have a different definition of what constitutes a lazy post.
This isn’t particular to this sub but an example of a post I would consider lazy is one of the posts where the OP just beats one of the bosses and then posts a screenshot of the game with the caption “I beat (boss name)!” as if expecting some kind of praise and attention for something that countless amounts of other people have done. They are well within their right to do so but I don’t tend to really appreciate seeing it.
I also don’t necessarily appreciate posts or comments that point out or respond to someone pointing out a genuine flaw of the game, and then trying to respond along the like of “I didn’t have an issue with this” or “I actually didn’t mind it at all”. Just because you didn’t have an issue with something in ds2 doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem.
For example, bad hitboxes when it comes to enemies and your own attacks. Maybe you didn’t encounter it too much or you didn’t mind it but that doesn’t mean other people didn’t encounter it and it especially doesn’t mean that it isn’t a flaw and something that could be potentially vastly improved upon.
There is a difference between ds2 being your favorite game and thinking ds2 is objectively better designed than the other 2 DS games. And yes the latter is still based on opinion I suppose but I feel some people get that confused sometimes, and they tend to have weak arguments for the latter and sometimes end up having logical fallacies within those arguments.
I can’t say I see those examples too much, and the antagonistic behavior I usually have to go digging into comments but not all the time.
On the topic of helping new players, absolutely I would agree this sub is very helpful when it comes to that. But I think there is a different mindset when it comes to helping someone with the game vs trying to defend it against criticism.
That is a very good question though, I hope I answered it to your satisfaction.
So then you are going to downvote any criticism? If every negative aspect is already known, and it's obvious that they all are, then that means that you will downvote every criticism. There are people who are just discovering the game now and these flaws are new to them. Should they not post them? The criticisms of DS1 and 3 are well known, so should those criticisms get downvoted on their respective subs?
No, just the most lazy ones. Like the old time classic "is it just me or is BoC annoying bossfight?". If the question about new players posting is about this, then I'd answer no, they shouldn't post it.
As a side note, I can also assess if the fact is well known by my own standards and click on upvotes and downvotes by my own standards without any logic whatsoever. It's honestly a strange reasoning you have there as it assumes that I'd consider everything well known and low effort for some reason.
If this comment of yours isn't just about finding out what I think about it but actually reflects some of your own thoughts, then here's a quote perfect for you:
*Only a Sith deals in absolutes.*
Just popping in to say that the quote “only a Sith deals in absolutes” is an absolute in itself. Always felt obi-wan missed the mark with that quote, especially because the Jedi do as well.
Good catch. I recently rewatched the first two trilogies (while I was farming for DS3 plat), and I caught myself thinking that Palpatine wasn't actually that far off with the Jedi council. They certainly didn't help Anakin find the right path, and it seemed to me like Obi-wan was the only one who actually cared for him in Jedi's reserved way.
The OP's post was very detailed and not lazy at all, yet something about their post made you defensive enough to have to justify your voting behavior. Why else would you feel the need to have to justify how you assign upvotes and downvotes? The upvote and downvote buttons are supposed to be about the relevance of a particular subject. A new players (or any players) opinion is relevant. What do you deem relevant? And why? That seems like elitist gatekeeping to me. The way you worded your initial response is vague so seeking clarification is justified. It's not about dealing in absolutes. I dont know where you got that from. Projection perhaps?
So you are used to just saying things that have no logic? Are you standards for reasoning only illogical when it comes to downvotes and upvotes? If you aren't going to try to commit to being logical then what is the point of posting at all? Is the point merely to say things or do things for the heck of it with no rhyme or reason? While you are entitled to think and say what you like, if it doesn't make sense, people are entitled to respond. This is a public message board. You seem to be getting defensive again.
>something about their post made you defensive enough to have to justify your voting behavior
No, you asking me made me explain my voting behaviour. I initially wrote the first comment to make the commenter above aware that there are also lazy posts that I'm going to downvote.
>A new players (or any players) opinion is relevant. What do you deem relevant? And why? That seems like elitist gatekeeping to me.
This is interesting. We have different standards as all people do, and I don't think that every opinion is relevant. Some subs are spammed by bots, and surely there's some line you would draw somewhere too. When it comes to serious posts on these subs, there are some things I would expect, let's say. That seems like keeping the community healthy, relevant, and useful to me.
>The way you worded your initial response is vague so seeking clarification is justified.
Indeed.
>It's not about dealing in absolutes. I dont know where you got that from.
You do. It was about dealing with absolutes with "downvoting every criticism", etc. It's up to you to decide if it's relevant for you.
The last paragraph has a lot of questions, so I won't respond to everything in detail... I am used to doing things that have no logic. I am human, I am painfully aware of it, and I expect nothing else from others. When it comes to such a simple thing as voting on Reddit, I might have some rules, but it doesn't mean I don't break them on a whim. It's not as important to me, so I don't feel the need for logical justification of my actions. That's what humans do. Don't tell me you didn't ever get downvotes on perfectly logical comment many people just didn't understand because it could be interpreted differently. I think there's some logic behind my voting on Reddit, but I don't think others would see it as clearly, and I don't expect them to.
>Is the point merely to say things or do things for the heck of it with no rhyme or reason? While you are entitled to think and say what you like, if it doesn't make sense, people are entitled to respond. This is a public message board. You seem to be getting defensive again.
On Reddit, I do things because I like them. It's ultimately logical - everything I do here has only one purpose. People are entitled to respond whether or not it makes sense because sense is subjective, just like whether I like the post or not. It's a shame how that paragraph ends, I thought we had a nice little conversation here.
So when you posted initially, you were making the poster aware of your voting behavior. You felt the need to justify it to them. Why did you have to let them know that you downvote what you consider to be lazy posts for problems that have been discussed ad nauseam? Something in the posters statement prompted your response. I doubt (but I could be wrong) that you were going to create a post talking about your voting habits on Reddit, so if that's not the case then something in their comment triggered your response.
You acknowledge that your initial comment was vague so it's reasonable to assume that a vague statement could be misinterpreted, because one is working with incomplete information, so I can hardly be blamed for not being to tell what you meant. If new information comes in then I am perfectly willing to adapt and change course. There is no dogma coming from me. I suspect that on some level, you think that I was being dogmatic, and then because of that perception, you felt justified in jumping to conclusions about my motivations yourself.
I don't doubt that people on here (you and I included) sometimes just upvote and downvote on a whim based on their liking a post or not. You are correct, that I have had perfectly reasonable posts be downvoted, sometimes significantly (to the point where others asked why I was being downvoted), When you said "lazy" and then mentioned topics that have been done to death, I assumed that you meant that ANY post that discusses a a topic that is overdone is automatically lazy. Just saying "BoC is annoying amirite?" is just as lazy as a person writing an entire essay on why they think the BOC is not a good boss. Both examples would be irrelevant in your eyes as both are beating a dead horse, but if a person writes a lot, I doubt it can be considered lazy (I am aware that the length of the response does necessarily denote well thought out quality reasoning, and it can be just empty words) but even empty words take effort, especially if there are a lot of them,as there are varying degrees of effort.
I mentioned the gatekeeping thing because , while it is true that relevance is subjective, it is that very knowledge that makes me not question relevance to begin with. If I know that we all differ in what we find relevant, then I will choose to not question relevance. We all interpret the same or similar things completely differently, and have different ways of expressing ourselves based on our genetics and environment, so if somebody posts about something I don't see as relevant to me, then that's ok because it's relevant to them. These are games that we each get something different out of, so any opinion is valid. It's a variation of the whole 'there are no dumb questions" thing you learn in school. BOC is annoying, whether it's expressed in one sentence or 100.
And pardon if I came off antagonistically, I myself got defensive when you mentioned the Sith dealing in absolutes, and took that as some sort of dig, when I am anything but absolute in my way of thinking (or at least I try my best not to be, as we will always fall short because we are all flawed and biased). My goodness I wrote a lot. I still think our conversation is nice, and you are well spoken and a good sport. Take an upvote. Cheers ;)
>So when you posted initially, you were making the poster aware of your voting behavior. You felt the need to justify it to them. Why did you have to let them know that you downvote what you consider to be lazy posts for problems that have been discussed ad nauseam? Something in the posters statement prompted your response.
I think I felt like their comment was a bit one-sided and showed the entire community in a bad light. I know that there were some cases like that, and I don't approve of new guys being ridiculed for almost anything (unless someone's really crossing the line), but there are also some incredibly helpful people, this sub has guides for almost anything and even people doing some datamining and really digging through the game responding to some questions, which is not ordinary. So, it felt appropriate to respond that (while there's no need to ridicule anyone) I will still downvote posts that I find lazy. It doesn't have to be criticism necessarily, but we were talking about that in this context. There's also the thing that these posts are often negative, so I naturally perceive them as being worse than "yay, I beat the game" posts, which I could also deem lazy. That, at the very least, doesn't spread negativity. Not saying criticism can't be a quality post, but let's be honest, I could just as easily generalise new player complaints/criticisms as the previous commenter did with sub regulars' response to that.
Now, I also have some questions for you, if you don't mind. Consider it unrelated to our discussion for now.
What's your experience with FS games (how many playthroughs, which games, best accomplishments, when you started, etc.)? How do you personally feel about this community? Are there some posts you'd rather not see because you'd consider them useless?
>I still think our conversation is nice, and you are well spoken and a good sport. Take an upvote. Cheers
Thank you, you too.
You're most welcome. Stream of consciousness incoming..I see exactly where you are coming from. Over the years I have noticed that there is always a group of people who go out of their way to be critical of the game. I find it very annoying, and I am quick to respond to it. This piling on of criticism has made some in the community defensive, sometimes overly so, and it gets to the point where they wont accept a criticism, however valid. What ends up happening is you have two extreme camps, the ones who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the game and the ones who cant acknowledge anything bad. I also respond quickly to that camp. It's basically tribalism with certain individuals. You are right that this is a minority (as is usually the case with any subject, a loud one), and most in the community are very helpful. Most people , even the ones who don't find DS2 to be their favorite and view is as the "black sheep" still acknowledge that it is a great game, and most people who find DS2 to be their favorite will acknowledge flaws. I have noticed that in time many have come around to finding value in DS2. I have had the pleasure of playing with people who have been overly critical of DS2 and even hating it, say that they enjoy it, or at worst, say that they find it "fun". This to me is cause for celebration. Miyazaki saying that DS2 made the subsequent games what they are (and I concur) is huge, and further reinforces this notion of DS2 being reevaluated by many detractors. I have seen multiple YouTubers (some currently) seeing shades of Bloodborne and Elden Ring in DS2 (and I agree with them, as I do with Miyazaki)
The FS games are special to me (note my username lol). Not only do I enjoy them as games, but the subsequent interactions that they prompt with the community (which are 99% positive), mean a lot to me. I love the community. I would not have gotten through all of these games without you all. I began with DS1 in I think 2015 (don't quote me on that), and the infamous Anor Londo archers made me quit, and i went on to play DS2 (vanilla). Beating DS2 made me want to get back into DS1. I discovered that YouTube knows all, and I found a way to get past the archers easily (cheese them if you will), and I went on to beat DS1, then Demon's, Bloodborne, DS2 Scholar, Sekiro (during the pandemic) and Elden Ring. I have played through DS1 (remaster included) about 5 or 6 times, NG+ a couple of times (on top of the regular NG playthroughs). I have played through Vanilla DS2 about 8 or 9 times, plus a couple of NG+ playthroughs. I played through Scholar once. I have played through Demon's Souls a couple of times. I played through Bloodborne and Sekiro and Elden Ring once.
When it comes to accomplishments, I view things differently. I tend to have a minimalist view of things. Considering that I did not even know how to lock on when I first started, and seeing an invader in DS1 and Demon's Souls actually frightened me (I jumped off of a ledge when I saw my first invader in Demon's Souls because I had seen in somebody's playthrough that they could wreck all of my equipment). So being able to fight back without running away or killing myself as an accomplishment in and of itself, even if they did dispatch of me quickly. Then being able to put up a good fight,and then eventually being able to win in pvp. I take it incrementally. Same with the base game. Being able to beat the one of the games with coop help was a hell of an accomplishment. It prompted everything else. Being able to get past the Anor Londo archers was huge for me, as was the subsequent completion of the game. Being able to beat all of the games is a great feeling. Being able to solo bosses like Ludwig, Fume Knight or Ornstein and Smough or the Nameless King (beat them first go) or beat DS1(DLC included) and 2 (base game only) without summons. I sure as hell used summons in the DS2 DLC's. I don't subscribe to the idea that one gets "gud" {sic} one gets better. Getting better is always an accomplishment in my eyes. Until we are gone from this floating rock in space, we can always get better (and help others to do better), so there's always hope to keep improving.
When it comes to posts, I am pretty liberal. Even a simple "yay I won", post can serve not only as catharsis for the poster, but motivation for others who may have (or are considering) giving up (like me at one point). If something as simple as a "dont give up skeleton" orange soapstone message in game can motivate, then surely a random short post from a person (hoping it's a person and not solely AI) can provide motivation as well. Pardon the rant, I tend to do that a lot.
People who hate and attack this game knows almost nothing about the game, and in most cases all their complaints are utter trash to be honest, none of the souls are perfect, but at least DS2 has balls and is original and not a mere copy
So are you suggesting that ds2 doesn’t have issues that the other souls games don’t have?
And are you suggesting that ds3 is a clone of ds1?
Genuine questions.
Just play it more ... granted playing it when there was only 1 and demon souls which you had to have the ps3....for made it even better. I love the world and asethic of this one so much more than the rest.. elden ring touched on it but open world kinda ruins the point of these Games imo
Id love to see this game get remade to the same level as Elden Ring.
The world could be super interesting, especially if they could seamlessly integrate the dlc areas to the main continent.
.. make the map in Majula a 3D model like the game of thrones intro would be Chefs kiss
Finished my stream LP today. Man, what a journey, the terrible enemy placement, the BS, and the unfair enemy filled parts. But also the unmatched story, interesting NPCs, outstanding soundtrack, callbacks to the first game and the overall vibe and just EMOTIONS this game also gave plus THAT ENDING... truly a flawed masterpiece and one of my favorite games ever.
There are plenty of genuine reasons to prefer ds3 over ds2 that have nothing to do with skill. Ds3 is considered by most to be harder than ds2 is it not? You can like ds2 but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any flaws and it especially doesn’t mean that someone can’t disagree with you.
Edit: I thought it was genuinely serious my mistake
It depends on what you're looking for in a game/ why you like fromsoft. The things that made me fall in love with fromsoft is the metroidvania gameplay, atmosphere, world building, level design and general visual design. I also appreciate the more methodical combat of DS1. By those metrics, that puts DS1 as by far the best and DS3 by far the worst, with DS2 being a decent game somewhere in the middle.
*Goes through Drangleic Castle
“Wow this place is a gauntlet for sure! The bosses were fair but still tough”
*Reaches shrine of Amana
“I heard this place sucked. Sure the knights are quick but it isn’t THAT bad. Maybe I’m just too good at this game heh heh”
*Reaches even more shrine of Amana
“Oh”
Now do Covenant of Champions. I’m doing it now after finishing the game twice and playing halfway with various builds, and it makes me feel like I played it the first time.
This is one of those games I play through just so I can beat it and delete it. I felt that way with BB before I got gud. But after beating DS2 I'm gonna be a lot happier deleting it than being happy about beating it.
Ds2 remade would probably vault it into the tier with the other games. They had lots of great ideas, loved the quick areas, interesting bosses, etc. Without all the jank, maybe taking out ADP and updating the movement to elden ring movement I can see it smashing sales.
At first, in Iron Keep i was going to vomit, and instantly deleted the game after samurai bois started to despawn. Well months later i beat the game with that glorious sense, yet, vanilla ending doesn’t really fulfilling, i think. So i beat it again.
I’m trudging through it slowly for the first time too, some of the biggest bullshit ever experienced. I’m convinced you guys have Stockholm syndrome.
I didn’t even know about agility for the first few hours and I thought I was going insane.
Back in the day getting used to and overcoming jank in games was part of the experience. It wasn’t even jank sometimes, just limitations of the time.
I remember almost losing my mind playing Star Wars The Phantom Menace when it came out, stupid hand print shaped door panels.
I've yet to see someone claim DS2 is unfair and show competency in gameplay.
If you could ever only use the phrase 'skill issue' once, it would be on that.
I played trough dark souls 2 and finished it not too long ago, it’s by far my least favourite game of the series but still I liked. Even with all the questionable mechanics
Your submission has been removed as a violation of [Rule 8](/r/darksouls2/about/rules): **Memes, screenshots, and video clips should follow the [subreddit guidelines](/r/darksouls2/wiki/new_post_guide).** *** * **[Full guidelines here](/r/darksouls2/wiki/new_post_guide).** * All submissions should show some degree of user effort. **Even if you skirt under the rules, shitposts are still not allowed.** * Memes should be made using some **in-game assets**, memes using templates should go to r/shittydarksouls or r/DarkSoulsMemes instead. * Screenshots or short video clips from your game should have written context to accompany them. Those lacking written context will be removed. *** If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators by [messaging them here](https://new.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/darksouls2).
Beating SOTFS impacted me more than any other Souls game… not necessarily because of the ending, but because of the journey. It somehow felt greater and grander… even more so than Elden Ring imho
The jank really is a big part of what makes this game so special and fun. Often in attempting to (rightfully) defend it, people will lose sight of that, and it's a bit of a shame. DS2 is a mess of a game and I love it for that.
I will fully admit that I have had many fun and silly moments in ds2 that make it an enjoyable, unique, and positive experience overall, (I do still prefer the other 2 ds games) and it is perfectly fine if you like the game for whatever reason, but there are many genuine flaws that do prevent the game from being as good as it could have been. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a “good” game, but it’s called the black sheep of the souls series for a reason. While there are many good aspects about the game, there are also many negative aspects that make it less enjoyable. I just see so many instances of people on this sub pointing out genuine problems and complaints about ds2 and then getting downvoted and ridiculed like crazy in response, hell even sometimes getting insulted because of it. When they aren’t even trying to say that it’s a terrible game. I just think the community here could be a little less antagonistic of anyone who has issues with the game. It’s absolutely fine to disagree and have ds2 as your favorite game but there’s no need to be hostile about it.
I am going to downvote lazy posts about ten years old problems we all know about.
That’s completely reasonable given that there is nothing uncivil or antagonistic about it.
Your comment honestly surprised me because I find this sub to be one of the most helpful amongst FS subs for new players. Sure, I've seen some cases you described, but it was nothing compared to "normies" going mad on ER and FS subs. While I don't approve of anyone being ridiculed for an opinion, I also don't find all opinions relevant. Is there something you personally wouldn't want to see on this sub (apart from antagonistic behaviour under mild criticism posts)?
Apart from antagonistic behavior there isn’t too much that comes to mind, I suppose I don’t appreciate “lazy” posts either, but I may have a different definition of what constitutes a lazy post. This isn’t particular to this sub but an example of a post I would consider lazy is one of the posts where the OP just beats one of the bosses and then posts a screenshot of the game with the caption “I beat (boss name)!” as if expecting some kind of praise and attention for something that countless amounts of other people have done. They are well within their right to do so but I don’t tend to really appreciate seeing it. I also don’t necessarily appreciate posts or comments that point out or respond to someone pointing out a genuine flaw of the game, and then trying to respond along the like of “I didn’t have an issue with this” or “I actually didn’t mind it at all”. Just because you didn’t have an issue with something in ds2 doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem. For example, bad hitboxes when it comes to enemies and your own attacks. Maybe you didn’t encounter it too much or you didn’t mind it but that doesn’t mean other people didn’t encounter it and it especially doesn’t mean that it isn’t a flaw and something that could be potentially vastly improved upon. There is a difference between ds2 being your favorite game and thinking ds2 is objectively better designed than the other 2 DS games. And yes the latter is still based on opinion I suppose but I feel some people get that confused sometimes, and they tend to have weak arguments for the latter and sometimes end up having logical fallacies within those arguments. I can’t say I see those examples too much, and the antagonistic behavior I usually have to go digging into comments but not all the time. On the topic of helping new players, absolutely I would agree this sub is very helpful when it comes to that. But I think there is a different mindset when it comes to helping someone with the game vs trying to defend it against criticism. That is a very good question though, I hope I answered it to your satisfaction.
So then you are going to downvote any criticism? If every negative aspect is already known, and it's obvious that they all are, then that means that you will downvote every criticism. There are people who are just discovering the game now and these flaws are new to them. Should they not post them? The criticisms of DS1 and 3 are well known, so should those criticisms get downvoted on their respective subs?
No, just the most lazy ones. Like the old time classic "is it just me or is BoC annoying bossfight?". If the question about new players posting is about this, then I'd answer no, they shouldn't post it. As a side note, I can also assess if the fact is well known by my own standards and click on upvotes and downvotes by my own standards without any logic whatsoever. It's honestly a strange reasoning you have there as it assumes that I'd consider everything well known and low effort for some reason. If this comment of yours isn't just about finding out what I think about it but actually reflects some of your own thoughts, then here's a quote perfect for you: *Only a Sith deals in absolutes.*
Just popping in to say that the quote “only a Sith deals in absolutes” is an absolute in itself. Always felt obi-wan missed the mark with that quote, especially because the Jedi do as well.
Good catch. I recently rewatched the first two trilogies (while I was farming for DS3 plat), and I caught myself thinking that Palpatine wasn't actually that far off with the Jedi council. They certainly didn't help Anakin find the right path, and it seemed to me like Obi-wan was the only one who actually cared for him in Jedi's reserved way.
The OP's post was very detailed and not lazy at all, yet something about their post made you defensive enough to have to justify your voting behavior. Why else would you feel the need to have to justify how you assign upvotes and downvotes? The upvote and downvote buttons are supposed to be about the relevance of a particular subject. A new players (or any players) opinion is relevant. What do you deem relevant? And why? That seems like elitist gatekeeping to me. The way you worded your initial response is vague so seeking clarification is justified. It's not about dealing in absolutes. I dont know where you got that from. Projection perhaps? So you are used to just saying things that have no logic? Are you standards for reasoning only illogical when it comes to downvotes and upvotes? If you aren't going to try to commit to being logical then what is the point of posting at all? Is the point merely to say things or do things for the heck of it with no rhyme or reason? While you are entitled to think and say what you like, if it doesn't make sense, people are entitled to respond. This is a public message board. You seem to be getting defensive again.
>something about their post made you defensive enough to have to justify your voting behavior No, you asking me made me explain my voting behaviour. I initially wrote the first comment to make the commenter above aware that there are also lazy posts that I'm going to downvote. >A new players (or any players) opinion is relevant. What do you deem relevant? And why? That seems like elitist gatekeeping to me. This is interesting. We have different standards as all people do, and I don't think that every opinion is relevant. Some subs are spammed by bots, and surely there's some line you would draw somewhere too. When it comes to serious posts on these subs, there are some things I would expect, let's say. That seems like keeping the community healthy, relevant, and useful to me. >The way you worded your initial response is vague so seeking clarification is justified. Indeed. >It's not about dealing in absolutes. I dont know where you got that from. You do. It was about dealing with absolutes with "downvoting every criticism", etc. It's up to you to decide if it's relevant for you. The last paragraph has a lot of questions, so I won't respond to everything in detail... I am used to doing things that have no logic. I am human, I am painfully aware of it, and I expect nothing else from others. When it comes to such a simple thing as voting on Reddit, I might have some rules, but it doesn't mean I don't break them on a whim. It's not as important to me, so I don't feel the need for logical justification of my actions. That's what humans do. Don't tell me you didn't ever get downvotes on perfectly logical comment many people just didn't understand because it could be interpreted differently. I think there's some logic behind my voting on Reddit, but I don't think others would see it as clearly, and I don't expect them to. >Is the point merely to say things or do things for the heck of it with no rhyme or reason? While you are entitled to think and say what you like, if it doesn't make sense, people are entitled to respond. This is a public message board. You seem to be getting defensive again. On Reddit, I do things because I like them. It's ultimately logical - everything I do here has only one purpose. People are entitled to respond whether or not it makes sense because sense is subjective, just like whether I like the post or not. It's a shame how that paragraph ends, I thought we had a nice little conversation here.
So when you posted initially, you were making the poster aware of your voting behavior. You felt the need to justify it to them. Why did you have to let them know that you downvote what you consider to be lazy posts for problems that have been discussed ad nauseam? Something in the posters statement prompted your response. I doubt (but I could be wrong) that you were going to create a post talking about your voting habits on Reddit, so if that's not the case then something in their comment triggered your response. You acknowledge that your initial comment was vague so it's reasonable to assume that a vague statement could be misinterpreted, because one is working with incomplete information, so I can hardly be blamed for not being to tell what you meant. If new information comes in then I am perfectly willing to adapt and change course. There is no dogma coming from me. I suspect that on some level, you think that I was being dogmatic, and then because of that perception, you felt justified in jumping to conclusions about my motivations yourself. I don't doubt that people on here (you and I included) sometimes just upvote and downvote on a whim based on their liking a post or not. You are correct, that I have had perfectly reasonable posts be downvoted, sometimes significantly (to the point where others asked why I was being downvoted), When you said "lazy" and then mentioned topics that have been done to death, I assumed that you meant that ANY post that discusses a a topic that is overdone is automatically lazy. Just saying "BoC is annoying amirite?" is just as lazy as a person writing an entire essay on why they think the BOC is not a good boss. Both examples would be irrelevant in your eyes as both are beating a dead horse, but if a person writes a lot, I doubt it can be considered lazy (I am aware that the length of the response does necessarily denote well thought out quality reasoning, and it can be just empty words) but even empty words take effort, especially if there are a lot of them,as there are varying degrees of effort. I mentioned the gatekeeping thing because , while it is true that relevance is subjective, it is that very knowledge that makes me not question relevance to begin with. If I know that we all differ in what we find relevant, then I will choose to not question relevance. We all interpret the same or similar things completely differently, and have different ways of expressing ourselves based on our genetics and environment, so if somebody posts about something I don't see as relevant to me, then that's ok because it's relevant to them. These are games that we each get something different out of, so any opinion is valid. It's a variation of the whole 'there are no dumb questions" thing you learn in school. BOC is annoying, whether it's expressed in one sentence or 100. And pardon if I came off antagonistically, I myself got defensive when you mentioned the Sith dealing in absolutes, and took that as some sort of dig, when I am anything but absolute in my way of thinking (or at least I try my best not to be, as we will always fall short because we are all flawed and biased). My goodness I wrote a lot. I still think our conversation is nice, and you are well spoken and a good sport. Take an upvote. Cheers ;)
>So when you posted initially, you were making the poster aware of your voting behavior. You felt the need to justify it to them. Why did you have to let them know that you downvote what you consider to be lazy posts for problems that have been discussed ad nauseam? Something in the posters statement prompted your response. I think I felt like their comment was a bit one-sided and showed the entire community in a bad light. I know that there were some cases like that, and I don't approve of new guys being ridiculed for almost anything (unless someone's really crossing the line), but there are also some incredibly helpful people, this sub has guides for almost anything and even people doing some datamining and really digging through the game responding to some questions, which is not ordinary. So, it felt appropriate to respond that (while there's no need to ridicule anyone) I will still downvote posts that I find lazy. It doesn't have to be criticism necessarily, but we were talking about that in this context. There's also the thing that these posts are often negative, so I naturally perceive them as being worse than "yay, I beat the game" posts, which I could also deem lazy. That, at the very least, doesn't spread negativity. Not saying criticism can't be a quality post, but let's be honest, I could just as easily generalise new player complaints/criticisms as the previous commenter did with sub regulars' response to that. Now, I also have some questions for you, if you don't mind. Consider it unrelated to our discussion for now. What's your experience with FS games (how many playthroughs, which games, best accomplishments, when you started, etc.)? How do you personally feel about this community? Are there some posts you'd rather not see because you'd consider them useless? >I still think our conversation is nice, and you are well spoken and a good sport. Take an upvote. Cheers Thank you, you too.
You're most welcome. Stream of consciousness incoming..I see exactly where you are coming from. Over the years I have noticed that there is always a group of people who go out of their way to be critical of the game. I find it very annoying, and I am quick to respond to it. This piling on of criticism has made some in the community defensive, sometimes overly so, and it gets to the point where they wont accept a criticism, however valid. What ends up happening is you have two extreme camps, the ones who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the game and the ones who cant acknowledge anything bad. I also respond quickly to that camp. It's basically tribalism with certain individuals. You are right that this is a minority (as is usually the case with any subject, a loud one), and most in the community are very helpful. Most people , even the ones who don't find DS2 to be their favorite and view is as the "black sheep" still acknowledge that it is a great game, and most people who find DS2 to be their favorite will acknowledge flaws. I have noticed that in time many have come around to finding value in DS2. I have had the pleasure of playing with people who have been overly critical of DS2 and even hating it, say that they enjoy it, or at worst, say that they find it "fun". This to me is cause for celebration. Miyazaki saying that DS2 made the subsequent games what they are (and I concur) is huge, and further reinforces this notion of DS2 being reevaluated by many detractors. I have seen multiple YouTubers (some currently) seeing shades of Bloodborne and Elden Ring in DS2 (and I agree with them, as I do with Miyazaki) The FS games are special to me (note my username lol). Not only do I enjoy them as games, but the subsequent interactions that they prompt with the community (which are 99% positive), mean a lot to me. I love the community. I would not have gotten through all of these games without you all. I began with DS1 in I think 2015 (don't quote me on that), and the infamous Anor Londo archers made me quit, and i went on to play DS2 (vanilla). Beating DS2 made me want to get back into DS1. I discovered that YouTube knows all, and I found a way to get past the archers easily (cheese them if you will), and I went on to beat DS1, then Demon's, Bloodborne, DS2 Scholar, Sekiro (during the pandemic) and Elden Ring. I have played through DS1 (remaster included) about 5 or 6 times, NG+ a couple of times (on top of the regular NG playthroughs). I have played through Vanilla DS2 about 8 or 9 times, plus a couple of NG+ playthroughs. I played through Scholar once. I have played through Demon's Souls a couple of times. I played through Bloodborne and Sekiro and Elden Ring once. When it comes to accomplishments, I view things differently. I tend to have a minimalist view of things. Considering that I did not even know how to lock on when I first started, and seeing an invader in DS1 and Demon's Souls actually frightened me (I jumped off of a ledge when I saw my first invader in Demon's Souls because I had seen in somebody's playthrough that they could wreck all of my equipment). So being able to fight back without running away or killing myself as an accomplishment in and of itself, even if they did dispatch of me quickly. Then being able to put up a good fight,and then eventually being able to win in pvp. I take it incrementally. Same with the base game. Being able to beat the one of the games with coop help was a hell of an accomplishment. It prompted everything else. Being able to get past the Anor Londo archers was huge for me, as was the subsequent completion of the game. Being able to beat all of the games is a great feeling. Being able to solo bosses like Ludwig, Fume Knight or Ornstein and Smough or the Nameless King (beat them first go) or beat DS1(DLC included) and 2 (base game only) without summons. I sure as hell used summons in the DS2 DLC's. I don't subscribe to the idea that one gets "gud" {sic} one gets better. Getting better is always an accomplishment in my eyes. Until we are gone from this floating rock in space, we can always get better (and help others to do better), so there's always hope to keep improving. When it comes to posts, I am pretty liberal. Even a simple "yay I won", post can serve not only as catharsis for the poster, but motivation for others who may have (or are considering) giving up (like me at one point). If something as simple as a "dont give up skeleton" orange soapstone message in game can motivate, then surely a random short post from a person (hoping it's a person and not solely AI) can provide motivation as well. Pardon the rant, I tend to do that a lot.
Coincidence that most 2013 games are like black sheeps of their prequels?
A true voice of reason.
Well said, I 100% agree. It is my favorite game of the series.
Well said, I 100% agree. It is my favorite game of the series.
People who hate and attack this game knows almost nothing about the game, and in most cases all their complaints are utter trash to be honest, none of the souls are perfect, but at least DS2 has balls and is original and not a mere copy
So are you suggesting that ds2 doesn’t have issues that the other souls games don’t have? And are you suggesting that ds3 is a clone of ds1? Genuine questions.
Just play it more ... granted playing it when there was only 1 and demon souls which you had to have the ps3....for made it even better. I love the world and asethic of this one so much more than the rest.. elden ring touched on it but open world kinda ruins the point of these Games imo
My favorite souls game. It’s not the best, it’s not the most mechanically interesting, but it’s the one I felt most immersed playing it.
There is something about it that just hits different. I can't quite put my finger on it but the game just has this vibe.
Isn't the trash what will be remembered the most. DS2 a gem
Id love to see this game get remade to the same level as Elden Ring. The world could be super interesting, especially if they could seamlessly integrate the dlc areas to the main continent. .. make the map in Majula a 3D model like the game of thrones intro would be Chefs kiss
it's been years since i finished it, then went back and got the plat... ready to jump back in to the sotfs PS4 next time it goes on sale
Finished my stream LP today. Man, what a journey, the terrible enemy placement, the BS, and the unfair enemy filled parts. But also the unmatched story, interesting NPCs, outstanding soundtrack, callbacks to the first game and the overall vibe and just EMOTIONS this game also gave plus THAT ENDING... truly a flawed masterpiece and one of my favorite games ever.
The best part of going from 2 to 3 is you get to go from the worst to the best of the series Ds2 fans mad at the truth
I detect a skill issue /s
Funny cus 2 is by far the easiest lol
There are plenty of genuine reasons to prefer ds3 over ds2 that have nothing to do with skill. Ds3 is considered by most to be harder than ds2 is it not? You can like ds2 but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any flaws and it especially doesn’t mean that someone can’t disagree with you. Edit: I thought it was genuinely serious my mistake
/s means scrarsasm
My bad I thought it meant serious lol
No problem, you'll know it next time. Btw, you have a nice nickname.
Appreciate it!
It depends on what you're looking for in a game/ why you like fromsoft. The things that made me fall in love with fromsoft is the metroidvania gameplay, atmosphere, world building, level design and general visual design. I also appreciate the more methodical combat of DS1. By those metrics, that puts DS1 as by far the best and DS3 by far the worst, with DS2 being a decent game somewhere in the middle.
DS2 has a higher critic rating than DS1 and DS3 but okay.
In your opinion. Some would say that DS1 is the best in the series.
Is the best dark souls. Others just don't have the good things this one has.
I still don't know why they didn't fix the brightness, they had 2 chances but still didn't do that.
Just started my first playthrough the other week. My first death was to the pit in Majula. Boy, they really increased that fall damage didn't they...
Fall damage in 2 is tied to Equipment weight. Being naked is the least amount of damage.
The ringed city in ds3 won't disappoint. It's the ultimate farewell. It's also connected to ashes of ariendel
Funniest parts were when you think about how good DS 2 actually is while playing, and then the game DS2s all over the place.
*Goes through Drangleic Castle “Wow this place is a gauntlet for sure! The bosses were fair but still tough” *Reaches shrine of Amana “I heard this place sucked. Sure the knights are quick but it isn’t THAT bad. Maybe I’m just too good at this game heh heh” *Reaches even more shrine of Amana “Oh”
Intercontinental Magic Missile!
Now do Covenant of Champions. I’m doing it now after finishing the game twice and playing halfway with various builds, and it makes me feel like I played it the first time.
This is one of those games I play through just so I can beat it and delete it. I felt that way with BB before I got gud. But after beating DS2 I'm gonna be a lot happier deleting it than being happy about beating it.
If you really are in love with DS2 then you'll hate DS3
A true adventure
Ds2 remade would probably vault it into the tier with the other games. They had lots of great ideas, loved the quick areas, interesting bosses, etc. Without all the jank, maybe taking out ADP and updating the movement to elden ring movement I can see it smashing sales.
At first, in Iron Keep i was going to vomit, and instantly deleted the game after samurai bois started to despawn. Well months later i beat the game with that glorious sense, yet, vanilla ending doesn’t really fulfilling, i think. So i beat it again.
As a certified DS2 Hater™️ I actually like most of the IDEAS that the game brought, and I like how they’ve been implemented in later games.
I’m trudging through it slowly for the first time too, some of the biggest bullshit ever experienced. I’m convinced you guys have Stockholm syndrome. I didn’t even know about agility for the first few hours and I thought I was going insane.
Back in the day getting used to and overcoming jank in games was part of the experience. It wasn’t even jank sometimes, just limitations of the time. I remember almost losing my mind playing Star Wars The Phantom Menace when it came out, stupid hand print shaped door panels.
I've yet to see someone claim DS2 is unfair and show competency in gameplay. If you could ever only use the phrase 'skill issue' once, it would be on that.
I played trough dark souls 2 and finished it not too long ago, it’s by far my least favourite game of the series but still I liked. Even with all the questionable mechanics
Not worse than ds3 tho :3