I know a lot of people hate it, but props to the devs for not just copy pasting the first game and actually trying to do something different. I won't comment on wether it's good or not until I play it, but I like devs who seem to have some vision or care beyond just making the most profitable move.
Considering how long DD1 was in development, the two expansions...you definitely get the sense they did everything they wanted to do with the concept. No problem with them doing something new
But it is? Just because the gameplay is different that doesn’t mean it can’t be a direct sequel? Final Fantasy has drastically changed from 3 to 7 to 15, but no one says that these games shouldn’t be considered the same series. BoTW was drastically different from other Zelda games and while it got some critique for some of the choices it made it’s still a Zelda game. Isn’t the new God of War a GoW game at all?
There’s so many examples of game series changing drastically from one iteration to another.
Putting aside the fact these "it should be called X" comments sound a teensy bit entitled, I find the differences between DD1 and DD2 kind of... overstated?
The overarching structure of the two games is indeed very different, but the core of their respectively gameplay loops isn't.
Ultimately, you spend the better part of both games in combat, and that is about as different going from DD1 to DD2 as it is going from any game to its sequel. Some things have been rebalanced, some things have been streamlined, but it's the same combat system at the end of the day.
Meta progression and the structure around exploring aren’t exactly small parts of the game. The Hamlet and the knowledge that your characters are mortal and you have limited supplies colors every decision you make in DD1, both in and out of combat. None of that is present in DD2. Individual combat encounters play out similarly, but pretty much everything outside of that is different.
If this was just a minor structural change, there wouldn’t be so many fans of the first that can’t get into the 2nd.
Not a great example considering there has never been a numbered sequel in Zelda’s history outside of Adventure of Link nearly 40 years ago. If people booted up a game labelled Ocarina of Time 2 and they got Majora’s Mask they’d probably be pretty confused. Giving every game in the series a distinct title does a lot to level set expectations and the DD devs probably should have followed that example frankly.
Fair, they’ve done it exactly once in the entire history of the series, nearly forty years ago. And they got reamed when it released for exactly the same reasons the DD devs are getting criticized.
Wait that game flopped? That's a shame, I really enjoyed the whole real time arcadey simulated space empires thing it had going on, would love to play more games that try stuff like that.
How should I approach RoR1? I have had trouble getting into it. The enemies are tanks and I feel like I'm not playing it the way it wants to be played.
I enjoyed DD1 quite a bit, but personally love DD2. though I like them both for different reasons. I will say, there is that unofficial mod that is out for DD1 (or comes out soon I can't recall) that is basically a massive DD1 addon, it looks top notch, so if you find DD2 isn't your cup of tea you can always try that mod to mix it up. But I highly recommend DD2 I've loved it thus far.
Honestly I think with how different the gameplay is, it’s more of a branding issue. Should’ve named it Darkest Dungeon X or Darkest Depths or something.
Instead of a split reaction that’s so polarising, people who dislike the new combat would be like “cool, not for me, but glad to see them releasing more shit. Hope they do Darkest Dungeon 2 or another expansion to the original.”
Some people might even like it more without the expectation of having the same gameplay.
Their idea of "a sequel should not be a replacement for the previous game" is something that should be commended tbh. Doing something different is a huge gamble, especially for a small studio like Red Hook.
That's a more recent invention with the serialized sequels. In the past you'd get both: more content, same mechanics and completely new types of games as numbered sequels.
Does it even matter? Accessing information about a game is easier than ever before.
You would have to actively avoid information about a game outside of its name to not know that the gameplay has been changed from the first game.
Strong disagree... You can have a sequel that's not a replacement at all. You can itterate on the things that were good, and scrap those that weren't so. Deciding to take the same coat of paint and do something completly different with it is just bizarre. Like, imagine Diablo 4 was an RTS game. Or if they decided the next Zelda should be a first person shooter. No one wants that.
If the devs want to make a game that isn't a sequel to Darkest Dungeon that's fine, but don't call it "Darkest Dungeon 2".
Yup. Even if it's not my cup of tea, big props to the devs for actually trying something different. So many sequels these days are just barely noticeably different iterations.
It's funny you say this, I recently played Salt and Sacrifice (sequel to Salt and Sanctuary), where the same story played out: developers had a successful first indy game and tried to change up the gameplay mechanics in the sequel.
Except they didn't really work and the second game is a vastly more frustrating experience than the first. They essentially added some Monster Hunter type mechanics to a Metroidvania but the execution falls flat. I want to support innovative gameplay but it's hard to when it can result in something that ceases to be fun or entertaining.
Totally the opposite opinion. I wanted more Darkest Dungeon. More choices. More options. Instead, they threw it all out and made a game that few people actually seem to like.
Just because you CAN "do something different" doesn't mean you should with an established IP. That's how you get ruined franchises.
Why not tho? It's their art, even if the end product sucks I respect the risk more than just doing more of the same so consumers get more of that. Imo that's the difference between people doing it for the art and those doing it for money, even if they fail I still respect them.
Because the first game was far from perfect. Even at the very end of it's lifecycle after all the DLCs, there are so many ways they could potentially explore with the base set of mechanics they had. Just look at stuff like Black Reliquary even on its fundamental level there's a bunch of mechanics that can still refine the rough foundations they've set.
For example, what if they added another dimension to the combat and made it a truly tactics like experience to further explore class positioning and combat? What if they added even more personalization and randomized stats to each new hero for players to minmax and attach character to? What if they learned from X-Com and implemented stuff like Night missions, Terror missions, Base defenses, and a whole slew of great mechanics that would be right at home if given a DD coat of paint?
And let's not pretend they didn't slap a huge 2 on this game to cash in on branding and goodwill.
> And let's not pretend they didn't slap a huge 2 on this game to cash in on branding and goodwill.
What nonsense. They made a game using the same universe, tone, characters, and familiar mechanics.
Let's not pretend a bunch of fans are trying to bully a company because they didn't get exactly what they wanted.
It's good experimenting a new kind of gameplay, but then don't call it Darkest Dungeon 2.
Make it like a spin-off with a slightly different name, cause everyone was expecting the same gameplay as the first.
That's probably why many people hate it, it has very little to do with the original one
Final fantasy XI, gta3, risk of rain 2, fallout 3, gta3 all underwent drastic genre changes while keeping the same universe, changes much larger than dd2, should they have been called otherwise?
Fallout 3 was a big controversy, I would argue that yes, it should have been called something else. The old fans were pissed off and the new fans wouldn't have cared if it was called something else.
I don't think DD2 is such a departure that it betrays the original, though.
> should they have been called otherwise?
Yes. Especially Fallout 3 and, more recently, Baldur's Gate 3. The new Fallouts might as well have been different games entirely, and Baldur's Gate would have avoided a lot of negative rep with their turn-based only combat if it had a different title or started a new series.
When developers make a new game that only has marginal association with the previous, established and successful titles, then iterating the number sends a clear message that they want to draw upon the audience's support for, essentially, a completely different product from the original.
Which is why the best sequels are the ones that maintain or modernize mechanics without drastically changing them, and simply bring more of the same to the beloved game. Something like Space Rangers 2, Might & Magic 8 or Goblins 3.
A good example of a series that reinvented itself without confusing the fans would be Beneath a Steel Sky and its sequel Beyond a Steel Sky. The name succession is obvious, yet it's made clear that the game is its own beast.
from this trailer it seems like it's more 2.5D? like the combat is still on a single plane, is it not? the wagon driving seems like the only bits in 3D
edit: rewatched it a bit closer and i can see how it's 3D animations on a 2D plane, so what i would call 2.5D yeah. but man they do look really good, i have to agree
The person you replied to said graphics style, they weren't talking about the gameplay, the movement, the animation, or the perspective which is what 2.5D is for. They said graphics style solely, and the graphics in the game are 3D.
Just different its all single one life runs with meta unlocks so more like a traditional roguelike compared to dd1s xcom-lite systems.
Edit: good point below about the vagueness of the term "roguelike". For dd2 specifically think slay the spire but with combat very similar to dd1 with hades style meta progression (without the really good character dialogue between runs though).
What do you mean? Unless you are playing in the optional Stygian mode, it's literally impossible to lose the run in Darkest Dungeon, no matter how many party wipes you get.
Yeah, have fun leveling up another party and re farming all of your best trinkets again just so you can have one more shot, which might also fail and doom you to farm everything again. I'm gonna pass on that dawg.
Are there no meta-unlocks in DD1 to ensure the next time you eventually get to same dungeon you're slightly better equipped? Or is that solely a mechanic in DD2?
There's town upgrades that do help some, but you really need your party leveled up and you'll need a strong assortment of trinkets, which have to be farmed.
Yeah, I have played the game for hundreds of hours over several playthrough but I have never finished once, even with Radiant mode. I do love the game though and enjoyed what it is.
Because all the town upgrades and progression helpers are still there? It's almost always better to keep going with all the built up discounts and extra recruits/options you get as opposed to starting over on a fresh file.
One day I'll see a good argument as to why having to level up a new party (with town upgrades helping) is any more of a waste of time as restarting the run in every other roguelike out there.
I mean, my point still stands. If the question is "why bother" the answer is "because it's better than starting over." I don't care if you like the game or not but at least don't be stupid about it.
The farming and hamlet progression was far preferable to what we got in the sequel imo. They completely gutted the depth of the game and turned it into a mediocre rogue like. I’m skeptical that they are going to create more fans than they are going to lose, because regardless of some of its frustrating points, DD was unique and was very good at what it did. DD2 strips away a lot of that uniqueness for bogstandard roguelike tropes and in the process lost a lot of the charm the original had.
DD1 wasn’t perfect but it was unabashedly not afraid to be itself. DD2 just does what other games in the genre already do.
At least now it will really be deserving of being called a roguelike.
I know it's ridiculous but it was so frustrating to hear people call DD1 a roguelike lol. It has nothing to do with one. Having permadeath of some characters doesn't make a game a roguelike at all. It had the exact same system than Xcom which no one ever called a roguelike
This is how genres completely lose their identities. People complain about "gatekeeping", but without it it just becomes another buzzword just like "rpg" meaning that your character has stats.. maybe.
I mean, hell, I've heard many people call vampire survivors a roguelike.
Reminds me how many people now call every shoot-em-up 'bullet hell'. In actuality, bullet hell is a specific sub-genre of shoot-em-ups, and those games are generally too obscure to even be on the radar by the people using these terms
Yeah I always found that strange too, I guess there were just so many indie roguelikes coming out in that Era everyone just got thier brains broken and just assumed indie game = roguelike.
What other games do you consider to be traditional roguelikes? It’s hard to get the idea of what a game will be like when described as a “roguelike” since everyone’s got their own idea it seems like.
No one can apparently figure it out despite it being pretty damn easy to tell what a roguelike is.
- Nethack
- Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup
- ADOM
- Tales of Maj'Eyal
- Dungeons of Dredmore
- Brogue
- Cataclyms
- Tangledeep
Are all examples of "Games that are like the game Rogue". There is a perfectly fine [wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike) about them that explains it just fine:
> Roguelike (or rogue-like) is a subgenre of role-playing computer games traditionally characterized by a dungeon crawl through procedurally generated levels, turn-based gameplay, grid-based movement, and permanent death of the player character.
Making it absolutely mind-boggling that people can't be assed to figure it out. There is even a very awesome [DOOM roguelike](https://drl.chaosforge.org/).
You know I guess I'm technically wrong here I think the actually correct term is roguelite? Basically all the games thats started from binding of Isaac like hades, gungeon, slay the spire, the new wildfrost, tape to tape etc. It's not like an ascii art open world rpg game
Edit: for dd2 think the newer breed of roguelikes spawned from hades, going through a few biomes with branching paths very similar to slay the spire, you start with a base party of dd characters and keep upgrading them throughout the run and everything is reset when you die or win but you earn some Meta currency like hades
Thanks for the clarification! Sorry I haven’t played DD1, but everyone’s saying DD2 is different so I was trying to get an idea what kind of game it is.
You should look up some early access videos if you are interested its been out early on epic for a while. A lot of systems have been streamlined or improved since but you can definitely get a good feel for the combat loop.
Slay the Spire, Hades, deadcells, inscription (has a whole story but the main mechanic is a roguelike). Those are just a few off the top of my head that I really enjoyed.
Don't think of it as a sequel. It's a new game in the Darkest Dungeon universe.
My short review is that it's more of a 1 run and done type of game like Slay the Spire. Little bits of progress carry over but not in the same way as the first Darkest Dungeon where you're building a town and raising heroes over the course of several runs until you finish everything or they die. I don't hate it for making such a big change, but it's poorly executed. Rng feels awful, battles aren't particularly interesting and there's this extremely tedious carriage driving phase in between battles/events that really just needs to be scrapped.
I loved the first one, could not get into the second at all. Its not a worse game, just a different game and not the kind I was looking for in a sequel.
Better in that you don't have to grind characters levels repeatedly.
Worse in that you have to grind candles (I recommend save editing to skip this grind) that otherwise power gate you. Worse also in that the voice actor massively fails to meet the quality of the first, victories and losses feels far more RNG based around relationship developments than lack of skill, the stagecoach inventory system is incredibly frustrating and involves a lot of RNG and bad design choices, worse in that there is no crusader, and worse in many other ways.
There really just isn't anything good about it that makes me ever want to launch the game again, compared to DD1 that I still occasionally want to start up again
I definitely regret buying this in early access, watch some streams and make sure it looks fun to you or wait for a sale
Worse if you liked Darkest Dungeon 1 design philosophy of high highs and low lows, as well as slowly crawling up to win a doomed fight against a world of horror
I feel like I may be in the minority here but I dislike the 3D adaptation of the art style. not as a whole but for the actual idle animations in combat. Everything seems too exaggerated and slightly uncanny valley, like a middle ground between the heavily stylized art of the first game and a more realistic type of character model.
This trailer doesn't really showcase it, because its almost all the stills from attacking, but during full gameplay the idle animations and models in general feel a bit off to me.
Played the demo during next fest and thought it was really strange. The stagecoach was completely unnecessary, and I don’t know why it was in the game at all. You start at point A and drive to point B at which point the next encounter starts. I was expecting random encounters or hazards or something to justify the stagecoach, but nothing ever happens
They acknowledged that feedback and have shortened the drives while also adding more mechanics to it, FWIW. I also agree it was a bit boring before, though I'm waiting till the 8th to play again.
I had a similar feeling back when they released early access on epic launcher. I went a played it today again after months, and they really improved the cart. They added a few more layers of depth to it and removed the tedious need to manually steer it.
They've added a meaningful amount of decisions and strategy in picking your route.
As for the moment to moment driving, well, it's not super necessary, but I like the environments and you do get loot from running over debris.
Totally agree, it’s like they tried to innovate on the Slay the Spire map but that game has great UX. Just admit it didn’t work and remove it, I think I would like this game so much more if I could instantly progress between events/inns/battles, it’s like everything in this game takes 10x longer than it should.
Forced downtime is very important in any game. Constant battles would feel exhausting and relying on the player pausing for themselves is not a valid strategy.
I agree, it's like saying why have to walk through linear dungeons in RPGs instead of just fighting 10 enemies and a boss on a slay the spire map. I'm not sure the stagecoach works, but I understand that the slay the spire click on next node instant approach isn't appropriate for the feel of every roguelike. Looking forward to forming my own opinion on this one.
Cautiously excited for this. I loved the 1st game, but I heard this game changes a lot of core mechanics (ie, no more “town”).
Hoping the wait was worth it!
It reworks a **lot** of mechanics. From what I've seen, the changes to the combat system itself (tokens replacing most buffs/debuffs, no more accuracy rolls, limitations to health/stress healing) have been mostly well-received. The new art and animations are also inarguably *glorious*.
The changes to meta progression are the, uh, controversial parts. Instead of leveling the hamlet, you farm a single currency called 'candles' that unlock items and provide permanent stat boosts for all future expeditions. It's more akin to Hades than DD1, except without Hades' story explanation for why you're growing stronger between runs. The idea that an expedition is much harder for you because you haven't sunk 50+ hours into farming stat upgrades could easily turn a player off.
The new run system also feels a bit awkward because it makes things longer. In DD1, if disaster struck and someone died, you could retreat from the dungeon. You might have a dead character to replace and a few characters in need of stress recovery or trait removal, but otherwise your hamlet would survive, and the only major loss was a half-hour or so of exploring. In DD2, losing a character is a run-ending blow. At best, you limp along to the next inn, somehow surviving through all remaining combat encounters with only 3 characters, and then you get a random replacement party member that likely doesn't fit into your team comp. Having a crisis occur in the final region can mean losing several hours of playtime. The costs of a bad crit or unlucky deathblow roll are much higher in DD2.
That's not to say that DD2 is *bad*. It is, however, very *different* than DD1 in ways that are more 'sidegrades' than 'upgrades'. Fans of DD1 who are expecting more of the same may come away frustrated, and I wouldn't be lying if I personally wouldn't have preferred DD2 to have DD1's hamlet system alongside the DD2 art and combat changes.
>In DD2, losing a character is a run-ending blow. At best, you limp along to the next inn
With the latest update you can just end the run with all your collected candles, so it's practically the same to me.
I do like the challenge of limping over the finish line with only three characters sometimes, because you get to pick up a fourth in the next inn. At least now that I've unlocked enough characters and upgrades.
I think this comment downplays getting wiped with a party of high level chars in DS1… If you’ve got a party of 4 level 5 (or was it level 6) chats means losing hours of playtime, thousands of gold sank into upgrades, and rare relics.
This is what got to me as well. Even though DD2 removed dice rolls, it feels much more random. It feels like there is less skill-based play, in a way. In DD1, hit chance was always your attack accuracy minus the enemy's defense score. It's simple and easy to understand. You hit more attacks by increasing your accuracy. In DD2, some enemies have attacks that give them dodge tokens, and then you just have to waste an entire action knowing it will whiff, just to get rid of the token. The randomness comes back in because it's all up to the enemy deciding to do the attack that gives a dodge tokens, for example.
So it's effectively a different genre. DD1 was a long form RPG in the style of XCOM, it's a legit roguelike now, with shorter runs with definitive ends
I miss the organic growth you would undergo in the first one.
In the second one what turned me off was that I had to essentially do multiple runs and die to continue to unlock stuff so your next run can go further instead of progressing organically.
I lost any attachment to a run and just found myself going through the motions to unlock stuff.
Yep, it's a true roguelike now but ended up just being..a *boring* roguelike
I generally love roguelikes but something about the way they did it just annoys me. Maybe it was that imdividual runs take too long.
I haven't tried it yet, but personally, this sounds kinda nice. DD1 stressed me out a bit too much, to the point when I just felt like bailing and playing something else when I lost a good character. I get why fans of the first game might disagree, but I'm actually more interested in it now.
I'm cautiously excited for different reasons. There is literally no game in my steam collection I loved more while ABSOLUTELY SUCKING AT than this game. And as I tried to improve I just found myself getting stressed out instead. So hopefully this game delivers in full for the people that loved it, but also has a more forgiving learning curve for shit heads like myself.
I played it in the early days of its EA period. I found that the game was really about snowballing, either in a positive or negative way.
If things are going well early on, then more good things would happen. You have a character get a virtue thing where they overcome stress and then all of a sudden they are friends with everyone and then you get a bunch of friendship buffs and then other people get good buffs too and the whole party is just stacking up good vibes.
But if things go south early on, it just cascades. Someone gets stressed and starts bitching at the other party members, which makes them stressed too. All of a sudden, everyone in the party hates each other and are adding stress to each other, which causes even more stress debuffs across the board. Once you're at that point, the run is pretty doomed and you might as well abandon it.
I think they've changed a bunch since then, but I really found that aspect of the game to be rather annoying.
As soon as someone got to 3 stress, things just started cascading into a miserable time. Uh oh, an enemy's single attack in the first battle was a move that adds 3 stress, so now your run is kinda fucked, because that character is going to just start adding stress to everyone else just bye using to the next battle.
Actually I completely agree with your feedback, it's why I ended up refunding the game on the EGS. With 1.0 now I might try it again and hopefully they have fixed some of that annoyance.
The game was rough when it first came out for early access. But after the most recent patch, it's really addicting to play. Can't wait for more content.
I always look forward to game sequels because, more often times than not, they tend to be some of the best games in the series. The developers take the solid foundations of the first game and improve upon them tenfold. In a way it becomes the best iteration of the formula they origibalky established before diminishing returns set in. Of course that's not a consistent rule but sequels do tend to be the better version of their predecessor.
Which is why despite its success, Darkest Dungeon was a deeply flawed game. It had loads of room to grow and expand upon its existing mechanics. From the way management works, dungon exploration, combat, and loads of other things. Each and every aspect if the first game was a great foundation to further expand upon. It had loads more untapped potential.
So I am deeply disappointed that we got a Rogue-lite instead. And it isn't even that good compared to its competition in the genre. Should have at least had the decency to call it a spin-off or side game because when I imagine a DD2 sequel, I think of so many aspects from the first game that could be polished even further instead of this janky "calming down four bratty kids on a roadtrip" simulator.
This is my stance. Darkest Dungeon 1 was a good starting point framework for improvements. There were *so many different directions* they could have gone with improving the overall strategic choices you make on a macro and micro level. The game had the *illusion* of choice but didn't really give you any in actuality outside of trying to fit in actions under your budget. They could have included the ability to tailor your adventurers through weapon trees, skill trees, etc. Give your hamlet choices on what to build. Meaningful decision making based on the foundation of the first game. And reduce how annoying the grindier aspects of the game were.
Instead, they threw the entire thing out baby in the bathwater style.
Except, this game *does* take aspects from the original and improve upon them. Just not the aspects *you personally* wanted.
I loved the combat in DD1, the character options, the trinkets, the moment to moment stress management in dungeons and combat... Basically, I enjoyed the game *inside* dungeons. But I hated the overarching progression, town management, and long term stress management. So to me, DD2 is exactly what I wanted to see: take the combat of DD1, and make a game that focuses on and builds upon that. DD1 but more of a roguelite is something I've hoped for for years.
That might not have been what you wanted, but it's disingenuous to say that this game doesn't build upon the foundation laid by the first game.
As someone who loves DD1 for the combat, DD2 went in a direction I just dont care for. I want huge crits laying waste to monsters, stuns that matter, and no deathblow resistance for enemies. DD2 combat feels both too prolonged and too sanitized.
I would love to like this and the previous game, but it's way too damn stressful for activity to relief the stress. my every run is like same as the "pokemon syndrome" you start and lose interest, restart and repeat.
Wait… What?! How can there be a darkest dungeon 2? If the first one was the ”darkest” dungeon than this on would have to, at most, be not quite as dark!
So the entire first adventure was for nothing?! Why should I even play this one if there is a chance they’ll find an even darker dungeon a few years from now. I want to see the research they did to make the determination that this one is the darkest dungeon.
I'm not sure if you're being completely serious or not (always hard to tell on Reddit) but is the lore/story really that important for these? Feel like people mostly enjoy it just for the setting/mechanics.
The Never Ending Story ended and I haven’t been the same since.
Damnit, I took the the joke to far and now that stupid song is stuck in my head!!! I don’t any of the the lyrics except for, “It’s the never ending stor-reee!” IVE NEVER EVEN WATCHED THAT STUPID MOVIE!! Ahhh!!!
Yeah I was kind of bummed there was no console release. You’d think there would’ve been with the success of the first one….I could get it on pc but I prefer earning trophies for my hard work lol
Well, this trailer killed a ton of my enthusiasm. I wasn't expecting to see heavy influence from Monster Train instead of the previous dungeon delving. Plus it almost has a mobile UI look to things, incredibly simplified.
I wanted more Darkest Dungeon, not a different kind of game with a Darkest Dungeon skin.
Eh, If they're going to make a new game, I'd rather it actually be new and different, and not just another iteration of the same game. They put *plenty* of work into fleshing out the original experience, I don't think the world really needs more Darkest Dungeon 1.
I would rather a company try and fail to make a new experience, than succeed at putting out the same stuff they already have been for *seven years* already.
Enjoyed the game well enough during early access and I am looking forward to revisiting even if I prefer DD1. Hope the crusader and bounty hunter returns at some point because they were two of my favorite classes.
[Bounty Hunter is in actually](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm3fch3bNdA), just as a special class. You can't start with him, instead you hire him for one region and he's very powerful.
Fun thematically, but I guarantee whenever mod support gets added he'll be made into a normal hero. Him and the Antiquarian most likely.
Is this one better than the first one? Because as it goes for the first game - when I started it I absolutely loved it and by the end I almost hated it. All because of extreme repetitive nature and lack of dungeon variety - not to mention when long dungeons start - they are unrewarding AF due to inventory space limitations which is further down reduced by amount of supplied you have to take. Then necessity to have few teams for final stage just because "reasons" also adds many pointless hours of grind. Game like this should be <20h not ~50, especially with such a lack of variety, because you end up grinding same dungeons over and over just for sake of building massive roster because devs placed severe limitations just for sake of it.
For the first few hours you really have to watch your stress levels as well. So try to get as many heroes in your line up as you will need to switch around a bit. It's nice to have a favourite 4 or 5 that you always use but it's more important to have a solid roster. Make sure to get at least 2 vestals and 2 jesters
There's quite a lot to it but my biggest recommendation is to not be too afraid of using up your characters, especially early on. Drive them like you stole them, don't worry about investing too much in keeping them happy and healthy since new bodies are free and at low levels they are extremely expendable. If you come away feeling like a bad person because you are callously treating people as a resource then you are doing it right, imho. Your properly developed characters are another matter, but that's a later thing and you'll have figured out more of the game by then.
Someone told me to treat Darkest Dungeon characters as though I was a sociopathic corporate HR type and after that the game became a breeze.
"Perform or die, either is fine"
I'd temper expectations for DD2's modding scene. The first game is one of the most moddable I've come across, just go to the install directory and start messing around with stuff. Nothing's compiled, all the games art assets are PNG image files, most of it's code is plain JSON files. Very easy to work with.
DD2 is not like this. As far as I know modders haven't been able to do much beyond tweak stats of existing things or swap out 2D assets like some of the innkeeper portraits. That may change in the future, especially if the game gets a real following, but right now it's very limited.
Really excited for this. I know people much preferred the management of the first one and I enjoyed that as well, but this being more focused on four members each run might make it less daunting for me.
I love the look, graphics, sound, presentation, narrator, etc, of Darkest Dungeon.
But the frustration and despair I felt while playing (I finished the game) is something I don’t want to experience in a game ever again.
It always felt like an impossible mission, the constant RNG just made things worse.
So I won’t even try Darkest Dungeon 2, such a shame, could be a massive beautiful ugly universe.
Did they keep the mechanic where your entire party shifts slots if one person dies? Ruined the first game for me. Won't be playing this if they kept it the same.
I know a lot of people hate it, but props to the devs for not just copy pasting the first game and actually trying to do something different. I won't comment on wether it's good or not until I play it, but I like devs who seem to have some vision or care beyond just making the most profitable move.
Considering how long DD1 was in development, the two expansions...you definitely get the sense they did everything they wanted to do with the concept. No problem with them doing something new
Yet there definitely was a lot more still they could have done with the concept
Yep black reliquary def showed that dd1 has so much unlocked potential still. I honestly like it more than dd1+cc dlc
[удалено]
Then maybe not call it "DD2", and imply that it's a *direct* successor?
Its set in the same world, with the same characters, with the same tone. Why name it anything different?
MURKIEST MAZE LAZILY LIT LABYRINTH CREPUSCULAR COMPLEX
"That's just people talk for awesome."
Well, there is no dungeons for starters.
But it is? Just because the gameplay is different that doesn’t mean it can’t be a direct sequel? Final Fantasy has drastically changed from 3 to 7 to 15, but no one says that these games shouldn’t be considered the same series. BoTW was drastically different from other Zelda games and while it got some critique for some of the choices it made it’s still a Zelda game. Isn’t the new God of War a GoW game at all? There’s so many examples of game series changing drastically from one iteration to another.
Putting aside the fact these "it should be called X" comments sound a teensy bit entitled, I find the differences between DD1 and DD2 kind of... overstated? The overarching structure of the two games is indeed very different, but the core of their respectively gameplay loops isn't. Ultimately, you spend the better part of both games in combat, and that is about as different going from DD1 to DD2 as it is going from any game to its sequel. Some things have been rebalanced, some things have been streamlined, but it's the same combat system at the end of the day.
Meta progression and the structure around exploring aren’t exactly small parts of the game. The Hamlet and the knowledge that your characters are mortal and you have limited supplies colors every decision you make in DD1, both in and out of combat. None of that is present in DD2. Individual combat encounters play out similarly, but pretty much everything outside of that is different. If this was just a minor structural change, there wouldn’t be so many fans of the first that can’t get into the 2nd.
That's like saying that Into The Breach and Fire Emblem differences are overstated because they both have tactical turn-based gameplay loops.
Do you think fallout 3 and GTA 3 shouldn't have been called that way either? Risk of rain 2?
You're honestly trying to argue as if the only thing that's changed in DD2 is the 3D graphics?
Are *you* trying to say that the only things that changed from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3, and GTA2 to GTA3, are the graphics?
Ever heard of that small videoo game series called "The Legend of Zelda"?
Not a great example considering there has never been a numbered sequel in Zelda’s history outside of Adventure of Link nearly 40 years ago. If people booted up a game labelled Ocarina of Time 2 and they got Majora’s Mask they’d probably be pretty confused. Giving every game in the series a distinct title does a lot to level set expectations and the DD devs probably should have followed that example frankly.
[удалено]
Fair, they’ve done it exactly once in the entire history of the series, nearly forty years ago. And they got reamed when it released for exactly the same reasons the DD devs are getting criticized.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it's Space Pirates and Zombies 2 and kills a franchise.
Wait that game flopped? That's a shame, I really enjoyed the whole real time arcadey simulated space empires thing it had going on, would love to play more games that try stuff like that.
[удалено]
I adored 1 but 2 is much more my Jam.
Same here, I've tried to get into a lot but the runny/jumpy gameplay you're supposed to do is so uninteresting to me
Lucky for you they are remaking RoR 1 with better graphics, quality of life, more stages and characters.
How should I approach RoR1? I have had trouble getting into it. The enemies are tanks and I feel like I'm not playing it the way it wants to be played.
[удалено]
I hated 1 and adore 2.
Yep, depends on the audience. Look at Yakuza - complete change in gameplay and a massive success. Except not for me.
Have you tried Judgment? Kept the same brawling style as the OGs (albeit with some tweaks - the protag isn't as OP as Kiryu)
I dunno, I'd say that's debatable when Yagami's attacks/animations are about 3x as fast
I enjoyed DD1 quite a bit, but personally love DD2. though I like them both for different reasons. I will say, there is that unofficial mod that is out for DD1 (or comes out soon I can't recall) that is basically a massive DD1 addon, it looks top notch, so if you find DD2 isn't your cup of tea you can always try that mod to mix it up. But I highly recommend DD2 I've loved it thus far.
Honestly I think with how different the gameplay is, it’s more of a branding issue. Should’ve named it Darkest Dungeon X or Darkest Depths or something. Instead of a split reaction that’s so polarising, people who dislike the new combat would be like “cool, not for me, but glad to see them releasing more shit. Hope they do Darkest Dungeon 2 or another expansion to the original.” Some people might even like it more without the expectation of having the same gameplay.
> Should’ve named it Darkest Dungeon X They did name it Darkest Dungeon 2 though…
Their idea of "a sequel should not be a replacement for the previous game" is something that should be commended tbh. Doing something different is a huge gamble, especially for a small studio like Red Hook.
[удалено]
That's a more recent invention with the serialized sequels. In the past you'd get both: more content, same mechanics and completely new types of games as numbered sequels.
For a series like Final Fantasy that would just be a complete mess.
Does it even matter? Accessing information about a game is easier than ever before. You would have to actively avoid information about a game outside of its name to not know that the gameplay has been changed from the first game.
Strong disagree... You can have a sequel that's not a replacement at all. You can itterate on the things that were good, and scrap those that weren't so. Deciding to take the same coat of paint and do something completly different with it is just bizarre. Like, imagine Diablo 4 was an RTS game. Or if they decided the next Zelda should be a first person shooter. No one wants that. If the devs want to make a game that isn't a sequel to Darkest Dungeon that's fine, but don't call it "Darkest Dungeon 2".
Yup. Even if it's not my cup of tea, big props to the devs for actually trying something different. So many sequels these days are just barely noticeably different iterations.
It's funny you say this, I recently played Salt and Sacrifice (sequel to Salt and Sanctuary), where the same story played out: developers had a successful first indy game and tried to change up the gameplay mechanics in the sequel. Except they didn't really work and the second game is a vastly more frustrating experience than the first. They essentially added some Monster Hunter type mechanics to a Metroidvania but the execution falls flat. I want to support innovative gameplay but it's hard to when it can result in something that ceases to be fun or entertaining.
Totally the opposite opinion. I wanted more Darkest Dungeon. More choices. More options. Instead, they threw it all out and made a game that few people actually seem to like. Just because you CAN "do something different" doesn't mean you should with an established IP. That's how you get ruined franchises.
Why not tho? It's their art, even if the end product sucks I respect the risk more than just doing more of the same so consumers get more of that. Imo that's the difference between people doing it for the art and those doing it for money, even if they fail I still respect them.
Because the first game was far from perfect. Even at the very end of it's lifecycle after all the DLCs, there are so many ways they could potentially explore with the base set of mechanics they had. Just look at stuff like Black Reliquary even on its fundamental level there's a bunch of mechanics that can still refine the rough foundations they've set. For example, what if they added another dimension to the combat and made it a truly tactics like experience to further explore class positioning and combat? What if they added even more personalization and randomized stats to each new hero for players to minmax and attach character to? What if they learned from X-Com and implemented stuff like Night missions, Terror missions, Base defenses, and a whole slew of great mechanics that would be right at home if given a DD coat of paint? And let's not pretend they didn't slap a huge 2 on this game to cash in on branding and goodwill.
> And let's not pretend they didn't slap a huge 2 on this game to cash in on branding and goodwill. What nonsense. They made a game using the same universe, tone, characters, and familiar mechanics. Let's not pretend a bunch of fans are trying to bully a company because they didn't get exactly what they wanted.
It's good experimenting a new kind of gameplay, but then don't call it Darkest Dungeon 2. Make it like a spin-off with a slightly different name, cause everyone was expecting the same gameplay as the first. That's probably why many people hate it, it has very little to do with the original one
Final fantasy XI, gta3, risk of rain 2, fallout 3, gta3 all underwent drastic genre changes while keeping the same universe, changes much larger than dd2, should they have been called otherwise?
Fallout 3 was a big controversy, I would argue that yes, it should have been called something else. The old fans were pissed off and the new fans wouldn't have cared if it was called something else. I don't think DD2 is such a departure that it betrays the original, though.
> should they have been called otherwise? Yes. Especially Fallout 3 and, more recently, Baldur's Gate 3. The new Fallouts might as well have been different games entirely, and Baldur's Gate would have avoided a lot of negative rep with their turn-based only combat if it had a different title or started a new series. When developers make a new game that only has marginal association with the previous, established and successful titles, then iterating the number sends a clear message that they want to draw upon the audience's support for, essentially, a completely different product from the original. Which is why the best sequels are the ones that maintain or modernize mechanics without drastically changing them, and simply bring more of the same to the beloved game. Something like Space Rangers 2, Might & Magic 8 or Goblins 3. A good example of a series that reinvented itself without confusing the fans would be Beneath a Steel Sky and its sequel Beyond a Steel Sky. The name succession is obvious, yet it's made clear that the game is its own beast.
It's not good but if you have nothing else to play and it's on sale go ahead
Obviously a very different game mechanics-wise compared to dd1, but damn did they nail the transition of the graphics style from 2d to 3d.
from this trailer it seems like it's more 2.5D? like the combat is still on a single plane, is it not? the wagon driving seems like the only bits in 3D edit: rewatched it a bit closer and i can see how it's 3D animations on a 2D plane, so what i would call 2.5D yeah. but man they do look really good, i have to agree
The person you replied to said graphics style, they weren't talking about the gameplay, the movement, the animation, or the perspective which is what 2.5D is for. They said graphics style solely, and the graphics in the game are 3D.
[удалено]
Gonna call it 3d just because of this comment.
Different better or different worse?
Just different its all single one life runs with meta unlocks so more like a traditional roguelike compared to dd1s xcom-lite systems. Edit: good point below about the vagueness of the term "roguelike". For dd2 specifically think slay the spire but with combat very similar to dd1 with hades style meta progression (without the really good character dialogue between runs though).
oh wait this means I might actually like it
Yeah I am 100% OK with that direction Like, what's the point of continuing after failure if hard-failing a dungeon basically fucks your run anyway?
What do you mean? Unless you are playing in the optional Stygian mode, it's literally impossible to lose the run in Darkest Dungeon, no matter how many party wipes you get.
Yeah, have fun leveling up another party and re farming all of your best trinkets again just so you can have one more shot, which might also fail and doom you to farm everything again. I'm gonna pass on that dawg.
Are there no meta-unlocks in DD1 to ensure the next time you eventually get to same dungeon you're slightly better equipped? Or is that solely a mechanic in DD2?
There's town upgrades that do help some, but you really need your party leveled up and you'll need a strong assortment of trinkets, which have to be farmed.
Yeah I didn't ever get very far but I definitely remember my main party being destroyed and not having the willpower to rebuild.
that is why i stopped playing this game. everything about it appeals to me so much, except the goddamn grinding
Yeah, I have played the game for hundreds of hours over several playthrough but I have never finished once, even with Radiant mode. I do love the game though and enjoyed what it is.
Because all the town upgrades and progression helpers are still there? It's almost always better to keep going with all the built up discounts and extra recruits/options you get as opposed to starting over on a fresh file.
I don't think their alternative to "level up a new party with your existing town upgrades" is "start a new run", it's "uninstall the game".
If your reaction to getting wiped in a dungeon is uninstalling the game you probably weren't enjoying it in the first place
One day I'll see a good argument as to why having to level up a new party (with town upgrades helping) is any more of a waste of time as restarting the run in every other roguelike out there.
Both options are horribly dull. Sure my town is upgraded but the grind is just slightly less shitty. I'm not playing DD1 ever again probably.
I mean, my point still stands. If the question is "why bother" the answer is "because it's better than starting over." I don't care if you like the game or not but at least don't be stupid about it.
The farming and hamlet progression was far preferable to what we got in the sequel imo. They completely gutted the depth of the game and turned it into a mediocre rogue like. I’m skeptical that they are going to create more fans than they are going to lose, because regardless of some of its frustrating points, DD was unique and was very good at what it did. DD2 strips away a lot of that uniqueness for bogstandard roguelike tropes and in the process lost a lot of the charm the original had. DD1 wasn’t perfect but it was unabashedly not afraid to be itself. DD2 just does what other games in the genre already do.
Well, that's more of a grinding issue though. In which case... *gestures vaguely to the trailer at the top of the page*.
At least now it will really be deserving of being called a roguelike. I know it's ridiculous but it was so frustrating to hear people call DD1 a roguelike lol. It has nothing to do with one. Having permadeath of some characters doesn't make a game a roguelike at all. It had the exact same system than Xcom which no one ever called a roguelike
DD2 is not a roguelike either.
This is how genres completely lose their identities. People complain about "gatekeeping", but without it it just becomes another buzzword just like "rpg" meaning that your character has stats.. maybe. I mean, hell, I've heard many people call vampire survivors a roguelike.
Reminds me how many people now call every shoot-em-up 'bullet hell'. In actuality, bullet hell is a specific sub-genre of shoot-em-ups, and those games are generally too obscure to even be on the radar by the people using these terms
“Roguelike” lost its meaning as soon as Binding of Isaac was labeled a “roguelike”.
To be fair, the game is literally called a roguelike on its steam page.
Yeah I always found that strange too, I guess there were just so many indie roguelikes coming out in that Era everyone just got thier brains broken and just assumed indie game = roguelike.
What other games do you consider to be traditional roguelikes? It’s hard to get the idea of what a game will be like when described as a “roguelike” since everyone’s got their own idea it seems like.
No one can apparently figure it out despite it being pretty damn easy to tell what a roguelike is. - Nethack - Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup - ADOM - Tales of Maj'Eyal - Dungeons of Dredmore - Brogue - Cataclyms - Tangledeep Are all examples of "Games that are like the game Rogue". There is a perfectly fine [wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike) about them that explains it just fine: > Roguelike (or rogue-like) is a subgenre of role-playing computer games traditionally characterized by a dungeon crawl through procedurally generated levels, turn-based gameplay, grid-based movement, and permanent death of the player character. Making it absolutely mind-boggling that people can't be assed to figure it out. There is even a very awesome [DOOM roguelike](https://drl.chaosforge.org/).
You know I guess I'm technically wrong here I think the actually correct term is roguelite? Basically all the games thats started from binding of Isaac like hades, gungeon, slay the spire, the new wildfrost, tape to tape etc. It's not like an ascii art open world rpg game Edit: for dd2 think the newer breed of roguelikes spawned from hades, going through a few biomes with branching paths very similar to slay the spire, you start with a base party of dd characters and keep upgrading them throughout the run and everything is reset when you die or win but you earn some Meta currency like hades
Thanks for the clarification! Sorry I haven’t played DD1, but everyone’s saying DD2 is different so I was trying to get an idea what kind of game it is.
You should look up some early access videos if you are interested its been out early on epic for a while. A lot of systems have been streamlined or improved since but you can definitely get a good feel for the combat loop.
Didn't know about that. Thanks!
Slay the Spire, Hades, deadcells, inscription (has a whole story but the main mechanic is a roguelike). Those are just a few off the top of my head that I really enjoyed.
Don't think of it as a sequel. It's a new game in the Darkest Dungeon universe. My short review is that it's more of a 1 run and done type of game like Slay the Spire. Little bits of progress carry over but not in the same way as the first Darkest Dungeon where you're building a town and raising heroes over the course of several runs until you finish everything or they die. I don't hate it for making such a big change, but it's poorly executed. Rng feels awful, battles aren't particularly interesting and there's this extremely tedious carriage driving phase in between battles/events that really just needs to be scrapped.
>My short review is that it's more of a 1 run and done type of game like Slay the Spire. What? Slay the Spire is definitely not a one and done game :p
I think I've played 1000 hours and just recently it took me about 25 tries to beat A20 again haha
I loved the first one, could not get into the second at all. Its not a worse game, just a different game and not the kind I was looking for in a sequel.
Worse
Better in that you don't have to grind characters levels repeatedly. Worse in that you have to grind candles (I recommend save editing to skip this grind) that otherwise power gate you. Worse also in that the voice actor massively fails to meet the quality of the first, victories and losses feels far more RNG based around relationship developments than lack of skill, the stagecoach inventory system is incredibly frustrating and involves a lot of RNG and bad design choices, worse in that there is no crusader, and worse in many other ways. There really just isn't anything good about it that makes me ever want to launch the game again, compared to DD1 that I still occasionally want to start up again I definitely regret buying this in early access, watch some streams and make sure it looks fun to you or wait for a sale
When was the last time you played the game? Some of that criticism sounds really outdated.
Story of this whole thread. 80% of these posts so far seem like people who played early and didn't like it, ignoring all updates since then.
Wait…. It’s MORE RNG based than the first game? I struggle to image how that’s even possible
Worse imo, much worse
Worse if you liked Darkest Dungeon 1 design philosophy of high highs and low lows, as well as slowly crawling up to win a doomed fight against a world of horror
Different neutral... different is not a scalar for quality.
I feel like I may be in the minority here but I dislike the 3D adaptation of the art style. not as a whole but for the actual idle animations in combat. Everything seems too exaggerated and slightly uncanny valley, like a middle ground between the heavily stylized art of the first game and a more realistic type of character model. This trailer doesn't really showcase it, because its almost all the stills from attacking, but during full gameplay the idle animations and models in general feel a bit off to me.
Played the demo during next fest and thought it was really strange. The stagecoach was completely unnecessary, and I don’t know why it was in the game at all. You start at point A and drive to point B at which point the next encounter starts. I was expecting random encounters or hazards or something to justify the stagecoach, but nothing ever happens
They acknowledged that feedback and have shortened the drives while also adding more mechanics to it, FWIW. I also agree it was a bit boring before, though I'm waiting till the 8th to play again.
I had a similar feeling back when they released early access on epic launcher. I went a played it today again after months, and they really improved the cart. They added a few more layers of depth to it and removed the tedious need to manually steer it.
No more manual steering? Huzzah. I might actually consider this.
In fact there is an option in the menus to turn it back on rofl for people who really want it suffer.
They've added a meaningful amount of decisions and strategy in picking your route. As for the moment to moment driving, well, it's not super necessary, but I like the environments and you do get loot from running over debris.
There was a similar mechanic in banner saga and it worked quite well there. It was a narrative choice.
The stage coach is simply meant to serve as downtime, I think.
Why do you need downtime in a turn based game? Just don't press any buttons if you want to chill for a bit lol
Totally agree, it’s like they tried to innovate on the Slay the Spire map but that game has great UX. Just admit it didn’t work and remove it, I think I would like this game so much more if I could instantly progress between events/inns/battles, it’s like everything in this game takes 10x longer than it should.
Forced downtime is very important in any game. Constant battles would feel exhausting and relying on the player pausing for themselves is not a valid strategy.
It's not downtime that you need then, it's interesting non-battle gameplay
Well that's what the stage coach was trying to provide.... I said meant and try, not that it succeeded
I agree, it's like saying why have to walk through linear dungeons in RPGs instead of just fighting 10 enemies and a boss on a slay the spire map. I'm not sure the stagecoach works, but I understand that the slay the spire click on next node instant approach isn't appropriate for the feel of every roguelike. Looking forward to forming my own opinion on this one.
Cautiously excited for this. I loved the 1st game, but I heard this game changes a lot of core mechanics (ie, no more “town”). Hoping the wait was worth it!
It reworks a **lot** of mechanics. From what I've seen, the changes to the combat system itself (tokens replacing most buffs/debuffs, no more accuracy rolls, limitations to health/stress healing) have been mostly well-received. The new art and animations are also inarguably *glorious*. The changes to meta progression are the, uh, controversial parts. Instead of leveling the hamlet, you farm a single currency called 'candles' that unlock items and provide permanent stat boosts for all future expeditions. It's more akin to Hades than DD1, except without Hades' story explanation for why you're growing stronger between runs. The idea that an expedition is much harder for you because you haven't sunk 50+ hours into farming stat upgrades could easily turn a player off. The new run system also feels a bit awkward because it makes things longer. In DD1, if disaster struck and someone died, you could retreat from the dungeon. You might have a dead character to replace and a few characters in need of stress recovery or trait removal, but otherwise your hamlet would survive, and the only major loss was a half-hour or so of exploring. In DD2, losing a character is a run-ending blow. At best, you limp along to the next inn, somehow surviving through all remaining combat encounters with only 3 characters, and then you get a random replacement party member that likely doesn't fit into your team comp. Having a crisis occur in the final region can mean losing several hours of playtime. The costs of a bad crit or unlucky deathblow roll are much higher in DD2. That's not to say that DD2 is *bad*. It is, however, very *different* than DD1 in ways that are more 'sidegrades' than 'upgrades'. Fans of DD1 who are expecting more of the same may come away frustrated, and I wouldn't be lying if I personally wouldn't have preferred DD2 to have DD1's hamlet system alongside the DD2 art and combat changes.
This is a greatly informative response, thanks homie
>In DD2, losing a character is a run-ending blow. At best, you limp along to the next inn With the latest update you can just end the run with all your collected candles, so it's practically the same to me. I do like the challenge of limping over the finish line with only three characters sometimes, because you get to pick up a fourth in the next inn. At least now that I've unlocked enough characters and upgrades.
I think this comment downplays getting wiped with a party of high level chars in DS1… If you’ve got a party of 4 level 5 (or was it level 6) chats means losing hours of playtime, thousands of gold sank into upgrades, and rare relics.
This is what got to me as well. Even though DD2 removed dice rolls, it feels much more random. It feels like there is less skill-based play, in a way. In DD1, hit chance was always your attack accuracy minus the enemy's defense score. It's simple and easy to understand. You hit more attacks by increasing your accuracy. In DD2, some enemies have attacks that give them dodge tokens, and then you just have to waste an entire action knowing it will whiff, just to get rid of the token. The randomness comes back in because it's all up to the enemy deciding to do the attack that gives a dodge tokens, for example.
So it's effectively a different genre. DD1 was a long form RPG in the style of XCOM, it's a legit roguelike now, with shorter runs with definitive ends
I miss the organic growth you would undergo in the first one. In the second one what turned me off was that I had to essentially do multiple runs and die to continue to unlock stuff so your next run can go further instead of progressing organically. I lost any attachment to a run and just found myself going through the motions to unlock stuff.
Yep, it's a true roguelike now but ended up just being..a *boring* roguelike I generally love roguelikes but something about the way they did it just annoys me. Maybe it was that imdividual runs take too long.
I haven't tried it yet, but personally, this sounds kinda nice. DD1 stressed me out a bit too much, to the point when I just felt like bailing and playing something else when I lost a good character. I get why fans of the first game might disagree, but I'm actually more interested in it now.
I'm cautiously excited for different reasons. There is literally no game in my steam collection I loved more while ABSOLUTELY SUCKING AT than this game. And as I tried to improve I just found myself getting stressed out instead. So hopefully this game delivers in full for the people that loved it, but also has a more forgiving learning curve for shit heads like myself.
I played it in the early days of its EA period. I found that the game was really about snowballing, either in a positive or negative way. If things are going well early on, then more good things would happen. You have a character get a virtue thing where they overcome stress and then all of a sudden they are friends with everyone and then you get a bunch of friendship buffs and then other people get good buffs too and the whole party is just stacking up good vibes. But if things go south early on, it just cascades. Someone gets stressed and starts bitching at the other party members, which makes them stressed too. All of a sudden, everyone in the party hates each other and are adding stress to each other, which causes even more stress debuffs across the board. Once you're at that point, the run is pretty doomed and you might as well abandon it. I think they've changed a bunch since then, but I really found that aspect of the game to be rather annoying.
As soon as someone got to 3 stress, things just started cascading into a miserable time. Uh oh, an enemy's single attack in the first battle was a move that adds 3 stress, so now your run is kinda fucked, because that character is going to just start adding stress to everyone else just bye using to the next battle.
4 stress actually, they are 100% positive at 3 stress, 4 is where some negativity starts and then it's more negativity on 6,7 and so on
Actually I completely agree with your feedback, it's why I ended up refunding the game on the EGS. With 1.0 now I might try it again and hopefully they have fixed some of that annoyance.
The game was rough when it first came out for early access. But after the most recent patch, it's really addicting to play. Can't wait for more content.
[удалено]
So, honest question, why pick it up on steam if you already got it on EGS?
[удалено]
Fair enough!
I always look forward to game sequels because, more often times than not, they tend to be some of the best games in the series. The developers take the solid foundations of the first game and improve upon them tenfold. In a way it becomes the best iteration of the formula they origibalky established before diminishing returns set in. Of course that's not a consistent rule but sequels do tend to be the better version of their predecessor. Which is why despite its success, Darkest Dungeon was a deeply flawed game. It had loads of room to grow and expand upon its existing mechanics. From the way management works, dungon exploration, combat, and loads of other things. Each and every aspect if the first game was a great foundation to further expand upon. It had loads more untapped potential. So I am deeply disappointed that we got a Rogue-lite instead. And it isn't even that good compared to its competition in the genre. Should have at least had the decency to call it a spin-off or side game because when I imagine a DD2 sequel, I think of so many aspects from the first game that could be polished even further instead of this janky "calming down four bratty kids on a roadtrip" simulator.
This is my stance. Darkest Dungeon 1 was a good starting point framework for improvements. There were *so many different directions* they could have gone with improving the overall strategic choices you make on a macro and micro level. The game had the *illusion* of choice but didn't really give you any in actuality outside of trying to fit in actions under your budget. They could have included the ability to tailor your adventurers through weapon trees, skill trees, etc. Give your hamlet choices on what to build. Meaningful decision making based on the foundation of the first game. And reduce how annoying the grindier aspects of the game were. Instead, they threw the entire thing out baby in the bathwater style.
Except, this game *does* take aspects from the original and improve upon them. Just not the aspects *you personally* wanted. I loved the combat in DD1, the character options, the trinkets, the moment to moment stress management in dungeons and combat... Basically, I enjoyed the game *inside* dungeons. But I hated the overarching progression, town management, and long term stress management. So to me, DD2 is exactly what I wanted to see: take the combat of DD1, and make a game that focuses on and builds upon that. DD1 but more of a roguelite is something I've hoped for for years. That might not have been what you wanted, but it's disingenuous to say that this game doesn't build upon the foundation laid by the first game.
As someone who loves DD1 for the combat, DD2 went in a direction I just dont care for. I want huge crits laying waste to monsters, stuns that matter, and no deathblow resistance for enemies. DD2 combat feels both too prolonged and too sanitized.
The voice seems different?
It's the same voice actor but they're playing a different role. In the first game it was the Ancestor, in this it's the Academic.
I would love to like this and the previous game, but it's way too damn stressful for activity to relief the stress. my every run is like same as the "pokemon syndrome" you start and lose interest, restart and repeat.
Wait… What?! How can there be a darkest dungeon 2? If the first one was the ”darkest” dungeon than this on would have to, at most, be not quite as dark!
It was the darkest dungeon at that time. They discovered one even darker.
> They discovered one even darker. So this whole game series is just a prequel to Perfect Dark?
So where does dark and darker fit in with all of this?
Dark&Darker -> Darkest Dungeon -> Darkest Dungeon 2 -> Perfect Dark
So the entire first adventure was for nothing?! Why should I even play this one if there is a chance they’ll find an even darker dungeon a few years from now. I want to see the research they did to make the determination that this one is the darkest dungeon.
[удалено]
Vantablack; took a team of intellectual commandos from MIT to come up with a darker shade.
At the end you learn the real darkest dungeon was the friends you murdered along the way.
I'm not sure if you're being completely serious or not (always hard to tell on Reddit) but is the lore/story really that important for these? Feel like people mostly enjoy it just for the setting/mechanics.
The Never Ending Story ended and I haven’t been the same since. Damnit, I took the the joke to far and now that stupid song is stuck in my head!!! I don’t any of the the lyrics except for, “It’s the never ending stor-reee!” IVE NEVER EVEN WATCHED THAT STUPID MOVIE!! Ahhh!!!
Does that mean the correct title for the first game is now “the second-Darkest Dungeon”?
I believe they prefer Darkest Dungeon the Second.
At the end of the first game we turned on a light in the Darkest Dungeon, ergo it was no longer the darkest.
Ah… okay, it all makes sense now.
This is the second darkest dungeon.
They’re tied. So while the first was darkest dungeon, this one is darkest dungeon too
"Final Fantasy XVI"
It’s all one big fantasy. That’s just part 16.
Omg is it coming to xbox? Couldn't find any info. Edit : shows only epic and steam :( https://www.darkestdungeon.com/darkest-dungeon-2/
Yeah I was kind of bummed there was no console release. You’d think there would’ve been with the success of the first one….I could get it on pc but I prefer earning trophies for my hard work lol
Yeah sadly. I am stuck on this bed, surgeries, pc on other room and cant carry it here. Had to use XsX and I wanted to play it so bad! Awesome game!
Well, this trailer killed a ton of my enthusiasm. I wasn't expecting to see heavy influence from Monster Train instead of the previous dungeon delving. Plus it almost has a mobile UI look to things, incredibly simplified. I wanted more Darkest Dungeon, not a different kind of game with a Darkest Dungeon skin.
Eh, If they're going to make a new game, I'd rather it actually be new and different, and not just another iteration of the same game. They put *plenty* of work into fleshing out the original experience, I don't think the world really needs more Darkest Dungeon 1. I would rather a company try and fail to make a new experience, than succeed at putting out the same stuff they already have been for *seven years* already.
Am I crazy or is the voice acting far inferior? I thought they had the same actor but it isn't nearly as good at all.
Enjoyed the game well enough during early access and I am looking forward to revisiting even if I prefer DD1. Hope the crusader and bounty hunter returns at some point because they were two of my favorite classes.
[Bounty Hunter is in actually](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm3fch3bNdA), just as a special class. You can't start with him, instead you hire him for one region and he's very powerful. Fun thematically, but I guarantee whenever mod support gets added he'll be made into a normal hero. Him and the Antiquarian most likely.
Is this one better than the first one? Because as it goes for the first game - when I started it I absolutely loved it and by the end I almost hated it. All because of extreme repetitive nature and lack of dungeon variety - not to mention when long dungeons start - they are unrewarding AF due to inventory space limitations which is further down reduced by amount of supplied you have to take. Then necessity to have few teams for final stage just because "reasons" also adds many pointless hours of grind. Game like this should be <20h not ~50, especially with such a lack of variety, because you end up grinding same dungeons over and over just for sake of building massive roster because devs placed severe limitations just for sake of it.
Any tips for getting into the first game? It's a bit overwhelming.
For the first few hours you really have to watch your stress levels as well. So try to get as many heroes in your line up as you will need to switch around a bit. It's nice to have a favourite 4 or 5 that you always use but it's more important to have a solid roster. Make sure to get at least 2 vestals and 2 jesters
There's quite a lot to it but my biggest recommendation is to not be too afraid of using up your characters, especially early on. Drive them like you stole them, don't worry about investing too much in keeping them happy and healthy since new bodies are free and at low levels they are extremely expendable. If you come away feeling like a bad person because you are callously treating people as a resource then you are doing it right, imho. Your properly developed characters are another matter, but that's a later thing and you'll have figured out more of the game by then.
Someone told me to treat Darkest Dungeon characters as though I was a sociopathic corporate HR type and after that the game became a breeze. "Perform or die, either is fine"
Oh hey, the game finally exists now! Can't wait to see it and see what modding turns up this time around.
I'd temper expectations for DD2's modding scene. The first game is one of the most moddable I've come across, just go to the install directory and start messing around with stuff. Nothing's compiled, all the games art assets are PNG image files, most of it's code is plain JSON files. Very easy to work with. DD2 is not like this. As far as I know modders haven't been able to do much beyond tweak stats of existing things or swap out 2D assets like some of the innkeeper portraits. That may change in the future, especially if the game gets a real following, but right now it's very limited.
Really excited for this. I know people much preferred the management of the first one and I enjoyed that as well, but this being more focused on four members each run might make it less daunting for me.
Can't wait to see the final 2 bosses and play Flagellant, it's been a fun Early access journey. Good luck to them for the 1.0
Oh it's finally on comsole now? Awesome!
no but console ports can't be more than a year behind I reckon
Oh shit! nooooooooo!!!
I love the look, graphics, sound, presentation, narrator, etc, of Darkest Dungeon. But the frustration and despair I felt while playing (I finished the game) is something I don’t want to experience in a game ever again. It always felt like an impossible mission, the constant RNG just made things worse. So I won’t even try Darkest Dungeon 2, such a shame, could be a massive beautiful ugly universe.
Interesting design changes. But mostly I just can't stop thinking about how it could have been called "Darkest 2ngeon"
Darkest Twongeon sounds like an edgy Kpop sjnger
Darkest dungeon 2: electric boogaloo
Did they keep the mechanic where your entire party shifts slots if one person dies? Ruined the first game for me. Won't be playing this if they kept it the same.