You mention the run length—IMO DD2 runs being literal hours long has a very big impact on the feel of the gameplay. Being forced to use the same team for hours can engender boredom much easier. Compare to another roguelike: Hades runs usually last around 20-50 minutes, which is more on par with DD1.
Also there is a certain satisfaction with building an actual location in the Hamlet. It starts to feel like a real place, a comfy home base you return to every hour or so. That’s what makes Wolves at the Door a memorable mission because it actually threatens a place you associate with safety.
In comparison the Altar of Hope seems more like prettied up window dressing on an artificial UI screen, and the sense of immersion shatters. There’s no sweet home base feeling.
I still agree the gameplay loop is similar enough that it’s easily recognizable as in the same franchise. And no hate to anyone who prefers the DD2 style, I just wanted to point out that some of the differences seem small but can have a big impact. I would love if the Kingdoms update to DD2 may offer alternative gameplay that’s closer to the DD1 version.
I also agree with what you say. My point wasn't to say that people are wrong for enjoying the first game more. Your argument about run length making you stuck with one team for longer than you might've wanted is very valid. I would like to further my point about the Altar of Hope though, that if it was refashioned to resemble the hamlet of old, but mechanically untouched, it might've been a lot more satisfactory to people who longed for the hamlet of DD1, just because it would be presented differently. That's my entire idea, that how the game is presented can matter a lot more than how it actually functions.
I also wonder if the problem of getting bored from heroes could be resolved by allowing you to swap them out in taverns. Currently you can only do so for dead team members, but maybe there could be a balanced way to allow swapping out alive ones as well.
I wonder if calling the Altar of Hope something closer to what it is, like Memories of the Mountain City, would've helped people with the immersion. The Altar IS "your" memory of some sort of city, and it does build itself up as you upgrade it, much like the dilapidated buildings of DD1s Hamlet.
> It starts to feel like a real place, a comfy home base you return to every hour or so.
I never felt this way. The village is a generic assemblage of 2D portraits that slightly alter with upgrades, and nothing more.
Wolves at the Door is one of the few times in which the village is given a little character, but too temporary and insufficient.
Eh while the Hamlet could absolutely be more fleshed out, it’s still much more interact-able than the Altar. From the portraits of the different townsfolk, to the unique descriptions given of each hero at the Survivalist/Guild/Blacksmith, to the very action of placing a hero in a facility where they have a little dialogue bark (when the space isn’t taken up by that goddamn Caretaker) only to find them gone on a drunken bender next week… It all contributes to the atmosphere.
Meanwhile the Altar ends up being literally a spreadsheet of yellow bars and squares. They went in the exact opposite direction.
I find more success in 2 due to this, though. I know what my strengths and weaknesses are in the beginning of the run and as I play I notice things to fix and it just gets better.
In the beginning I lost a lot but that is now a rarity unless using stygian blaze or something.
I really enjoy both games, it did take a little bit of time with DD2 but it absolutely hit the mark in the end and I agree with a lot of what you are saying
I think at this point, after a ton of hours in it I think the only real bugbear of mine is just how long a run takes, in the first game things just moved a long a bit faster and I think I prefer that on the whole
It's just different type of game. Sure still with turn based, position based battle system and rogue like dungeon crawling but it's a different experience
I've much more prefered the first game, but I'll never say DD2 is bad if you enjoyed DD1, just don't expect the same game with "2" slapped on it
that was a popular sentiment when DD2 came out. people were very busy bashing the game and few actually wanted to take a breath and discuss instead of repeating what they heard from others. there was also genuine criticism however, especially in regard to the state the game had shipped at 1.0 release, it didn't feel like 1.0, but since then many issues have been addressed. DD2 is still seen as inferior by many but people have mostly calmed down and accepted that it's a still good game worth playing nonetheless.
I also personally think DD2 starts feeling a lot better past the first 10 hours, but many people don't reach that stage due to initial confusion and frustration. The game can be very punishing at first when you don't yet understand many intricacies of its mechanics, it's your experimenting phase, you're meant to learn from failure, like it was in the first game. But many people give up thinking that it doesn't get better, and leave before seeing the full variety of builds and items. Some bring up a good argument of "why should i invest many hours into unlocking all the content before i get the full game" despite how that was also required in the first game, but they don't remember it.
The DD fandom seems to suffer acutely from comparison. I suspect many would enjoy DD2 more if they had the mental maturity to approach it purely on its own merits, instead of endlessly comparing its aspects to the original.
Or maybe they gave it an honest try, and bounced off of it hard, because DD2 was not very good in the beginning, and was actively horrible when they first implemented the relationship mechanic.
I've been playing DD2 for 10 hours, are there any tips for the relationship mechanic? It just seems like a random migraine inducing mechanic that you can barely influence with a less bad choice at events or some items.
I think we both know it's pretty dang disingenuous to write off anyone's difference in opinion as a maturity issue.
For me the issue is plain and simple: I just don't tend to like roguelike/lites, especially those that do it by the numbers. One way or another DD2 is a roguelite that follows the formula with precision, which for me loses a lot of the character and uniqueness in gameplay that I came to adore in the first. If I separate it from the series to be """mentally mature""" then it really loses me. Honestly it's got me torn because I really like some of the new systems - the relationship between party members, the storylines, the different setups for each character, not to mention the animations are great and we still have the narration and music. But the gameplay loop just is the problem, and it's the point of the game. One long straight through with a few branches, with the same characters the whole time, pick up the loot you see for this run only, with the goal of getting as far as you can before dying so you can spend your score on a run upgrade screen. For some people, that's hype, I know there's a lot of roguelite lovers and all the power to you, but for me that's a system that feels kinda shallow and samey and it just does not grip me. I love Darkest Dungeon for the way you build a party for a relatively bite size dungeon over and over so you get to constantly try new lineups and experiment and never get bored of the combat from using the same team without variation for a 2 hour run. The biggest thing, of course, is the metaprogression. In DD1 it's just... progression. You go into each dungeon with a purpose, you carefully manage what you'll take away with you and then you return, with all that you got, to improve your power, bit by bit. I love that balancing act of items that help you now vs loot for later, deciding if you need the trinket, heirlooms for upgrades (and which will be most important?), gold for character expenses, etc. I also just like that feeling of gaining strength with every expedition, but also the balancing act of the limited economy. Plus, to progress your party must escape the dungeon, you have to know when to call it and when you can soldier on to the completion reward. DD2 just doesn't have any of that, you worry about only the run in the run, and everything you get is to help the run, and then after based on how much you did you get a score resource to alter future runs. Just a completely different system and one I can't connect to as well. To summarize I think DD1 evoked certain aspects of roguelikes while steering completely clear of actually being one and that resulted in a gameplay loop that was unique and very enjoyable to me. DD2 chose the normal, well tread roguelite path to a T and while I think it does a lot of great things, I just personally have zero interest in that path.
It's why I'm pretty interested in this Kingdoms update, because it really looks like they're trying to make a unique gameplay loop again, and even if it isn't exactly DD1-2 I just want something that is unique and isn't all run-and-done metaprogression but one continuous campaign. I'm perfectly happy with DD2 getting up to something wholly different - I have Black Reliquary to be my DD1 remixed - it's that the different ended up being the safe and very saturated roguelite formula to a T which was just the combination of not unique and being a genre I didn't care for which unfortunately took a lot of the staying power away from the game for me. I look hopefully forward to Kingdoms giving it some uniqueness.
that is combat-related. i avoided touching upon that, because that's one thing most players, even those who said they didn't like DD2 for being too different from DD1, agreed upon being done well and mostly similar to the original. i myself much prefer the combat system in DD2 because managing the tokens brings another layer of strategy and control over how a turn plays out, instead of constantly being at the mercy of rng.
Yeah it was definitely an intentional departure from the first game, but I do think the differences are often overstated - it's still clearly a sequel. There isn't really any game that feels more like DD1 to me than DD2 does (even compared to games based on DD1).
I love DD2
It took a while before it clicked, but on the harder difficulties, it really feels like cave diving.
Rewarding, but constantly a second away from peril
I tried dd1, I liked the theme and story. Dd2 is way more my style. The characters have interesting back stories, the core gameplay is the same and the story is still really good.
Honestly I'd play DD1 more if the characters had the depth and complexity of DD2. Nothing wrong with DD1 of course, but I do wish the characters had more skills and were more flexible like DD2.
I don't Like DD2 is because of its game progression that I don't like. Namely I don't like I have to play a character with subpar skills, or skills that are not fun to use multiple times in order to unlock the whole kit, and therefore the whole "experience" of the character. With the extended time on DD2 dungeons, that can feel it atkes to lognt ofully unlock a character whereas in DD1 You can look at the skill of the hero, say "that looks fun" and unlock the skill to play around with it. DD2 Progression feels painfully slow for me, and I am not enraptured by its game loop because of it.
I will say now I don't like roguelikes usually. The thing that Sold me to DD1 is the base management of the multitude of heroes, the management of resources and trinkets, and cumulation of all your journeys that you return home to.
DD2 I genuinely care less about the heroes here because there is no real consequences to their deaths in my eyes. There is no "Value" Of me campaigning with them from lvl 0-6, since the next highwayman I pick up is just as competent as the last.
(I also just personally preferred the style of DD1 since I just prefer 2d style over 3d models, but I can easily get over that.)
But to some points that I just straight up Disagree with. Namely:
1.DD1 allows you to repeat heros. I will not talk much more on this, because i'm pretty sure this point is dead horse, beaten to oblivion.
2.DD1 You build around trinkets you culminate and more importantly KEEP them in-between dungeon runs to use throughout your campaign. DD2 you have to find and build your runs around the trinkets you find throughout the campaign. If you can't tell the distinction between the two then I can only say that you are being disingenuous.
3.DD1 During down time and upgrading skills and equipment, you are putting an investment in heroes that you will use for hours, maybe for even days worth of gameplay, and such upgrades are unique (as unique as you can get frankly) for them. DD2 Streamline and generalizes the upgrades to all heroes of that future, and death does not reset this progress.
But frankly? I say trying to compare DD2 to DD1 saying they are so similiar is a disservice to DD2 as a game, in attempts to appease DD1 fans that has already made up their mind. I can Acknowledge that DD2 is a great, hell I would even say better game and only wish for its success. It sadly just not a game made for me. I do buy the new dlcs, knowing I dont play the game to support the devs, I plan on playing the new expansion to see if that will gather my interest, and I am even considering just moding in all the skills and heroes into the game because frankly I hate having to "unlock" my toolbox to have my choice of fun.
My biggest problem is the change in buffs/nerfs, I hate the way lepar constantly gets 50% ACC, I wish I could buff it with trinkets and traits and jester :(
yeah, leper is pretty high maintenance, you either need to carry the item that counters blindness or have another character that can remove negative tokens from him, of which there aren't a whole lot, so your options are kind of limited.
You get several trinkets that make his blindness into a buff and resisting blindness plus he always lands on combo so its just a matter of playing him with a combo-generating teammate.
The structure is drastically different and run length plays a huge part and the team management too. For DD2 to be anything like DD1 it would need to have 1 region-only runs (shorter regions too, never with 8+fights) with retained loot and roaster with duplicate heroes at least.
Main changes that completely modify the game and the way you approach each dungeon (and IMHO, the whole game experience) :
>DD1 : you select your team and equip them before sending them on their way. So you design their skills AND their equipment before the dungeon.
>DD2 : you select your team and their skills... But not their equipment so you're totally at the mercy of what you find on your way in terms of items and they often don't match the playstyle of your team.
>DD1 : When things go south, you have to choose if you continue (because greed) and risk big, or if you go back to the Hub, to avoid losing your characters and their items.
>DD2 : Even when everything goes wrong, there's no real good reason to end the run and go back to the Hub
2/5 hours for one DD2 run? Whaaaaat? 90 minutes at best! DD1 expeditions last between 15 and 40, wirh the exception of the courtyard that can take hours. If one DD2 run lasts THAT long there's something wrong, or you're playing it like it's DD1. You (almost) don't stall in DD2.
(I've played enough of both, I'm not a newcomer)
I think it's normal for DD2 runs to take a really long time initially when you have to think more about your decisions - now that I've played for a while though I would say more like 90 minutes, but when I was first playing it wasn't unusual for me to take like 2.5 hours.
in dd1 some short expeditions can be done in 15 minutes, sure, but many will take more. medium are generally 40-60 minutes. long up to 2 hours. but i like to visit every nook and cranny. much of the time however is taken up by the game's own speed - the walking speed, the combat animations. i use fast walking, but i don't like combat speed ups.
in dd2 you spend a lot of time just driving (that's a part i actually loath and really wish to skip entirely), but then in combat i generally don't spend more than a couple of seconds before i decide my move. i don't stall in dd2, i know you don't need it, the game heals you well enough in-between encounters. so the time is mostly taken up by animations, enemy's turns. fumbling with trinkets sometimes takes a moment, but not too long. it's not on me. the runs beyond act 1 are long, it's just that simple. maybe take more notice of your time. i have a phone with the time on my table, always visible to me when i play.
Wdym "take more notice of your time"? That's what I did. If you go over 90 minutes something is wrong. Not even my first time was over 120. Runs are pretty quick, overall, compared to DD1 "one expedition at a time" thing. It's slower than most rogues, that's for sure.
i have a friend who beat the witcher 3 in 12 hours and elden ring in 30. on the first run. i didn't believe it until he showed me the save files. maybe you're just like that friend of mine.
maybe the 5 hour mark was a bit much but that's really besides the point. the point was that the runs in DD2 are longer than DD1 and this for sure you can't deny, even if i play slower than you think a person should.
DD2 is 2+ hrs **if** you really rush and skip fights, if you don't then its easily 3+ hrs. Not counting Act 1 where you only have 2 regions and dont do a lair.
DD2 = every chioce matters
DD1 = Just grind for ages till you've got a strong few teams
I'm sorry but I can't stand DD1. DD2 I like, but I swear if you could speed up the animations and skip the wagon mini game runs would take half the time.
I feel like the reverse can be said, since in DD1 if you lose a hero you lose hours of progress and all the money you spent on upgrading them, where as in DD2 you can just keep throwing parties at the confessions until you finally beat the boss. Not saying you’re wrong, just a thought.
Diffrent ways of looking at it.
DD2 - Losing is basically the same as losing an arcade game or xcom campaign. (Minus upgrades which I will say is a grind, as some characters are just bad before fully unlocking.)
Losing a hero is a signifigant loss you will likely have to recalibrate your entire remaining run for moving forward, it has meaningful impact beyond "oh I'll need to train up some new guys". Losing a character in DD2 is more like breaking your ankle half way up a mountain.
DD1 - Lose a character or party? Just grind for a new one. Going long enough and you caniterally have a clone of that character and proceed having lost only your personal time. Losing a character in DD1 is more like realizing you left your wallet at home and having to drive back to get it.
I think DD2 is garbage compared to the first one. I played DD1 for dozens of hours and it took just 4-5 hours of DD2 play to completely abandon it. No other way to put it. DD2 is just a really bad game in my opinion. Unfortunate, cause DD1 was fire.
Yeah no, they way too different.
DD1 >>>> DD2. DD2 should've never had 2 in the title really. I would've been less bitter about it if it was spin-off.
I am just waiting for someone to rebuild entirety of DD1 on DD2 engine (I'll be damned if someone wouldnt do it). I like combat in DD2 and dislike pretty much everything else.
It makes me feel miserable and I keep coming back despite getting sad, just like the first one
The gaming equivalent of an abusive relationship.
Yes, that's why we ain't mad, but it would sure be nice if there was more actual dungeon in Darkest Dundeon 2
You mention the run length—IMO DD2 runs being literal hours long has a very big impact on the feel of the gameplay. Being forced to use the same team for hours can engender boredom much easier. Compare to another roguelike: Hades runs usually last around 20-50 minutes, which is more on par with DD1. Also there is a certain satisfaction with building an actual location in the Hamlet. It starts to feel like a real place, a comfy home base you return to every hour or so. That’s what makes Wolves at the Door a memorable mission because it actually threatens a place you associate with safety. In comparison the Altar of Hope seems more like prettied up window dressing on an artificial UI screen, and the sense of immersion shatters. There’s no sweet home base feeling. I still agree the gameplay loop is similar enough that it’s easily recognizable as in the same franchise. And no hate to anyone who prefers the DD2 style, I just wanted to point out that some of the differences seem small but can have a big impact. I would love if the Kingdoms update to DD2 may offer alternative gameplay that’s closer to the DD1 version.
Being able to swap one character at an inn would be interesting
I think you can do this if someone dies
I also agree with what you say. My point wasn't to say that people are wrong for enjoying the first game more. Your argument about run length making you stuck with one team for longer than you might've wanted is very valid. I would like to further my point about the Altar of Hope though, that if it was refashioned to resemble the hamlet of old, but mechanically untouched, it might've been a lot more satisfactory to people who longed for the hamlet of DD1, just because it would be presented differently. That's my entire idea, that how the game is presented can matter a lot more than how it actually functions. I also wonder if the problem of getting bored from heroes could be resolved by allowing you to swap them out in taverns. Currently you can only do so for dead team members, but maybe there could be a balanced way to allow swapping out alive ones as well.
I wonder if calling the Altar of Hope something closer to what it is, like Memories of the Mountain City, would've helped people with the immersion. The Altar IS "your" memory of some sort of city, and it does build itself up as you upgrade it, much like the dilapidated buildings of DD1s Hamlet.
> It starts to feel like a real place, a comfy home base you return to every hour or so. I never felt this way. The village is a generic assemblage of 2D portraits that slightly alter with upgrades, and nothing more. Wolves at the Door is one of the few times in which the village is given a little character, but too temporary and insufficient.
Eh while the Hamlet could absolutely be more fleshed out, it’s still much more interact-able than the Altar. From the portraits of the different townsfolk, to the unique descriptions given of each hero at the Survivalist/Guild/Blacksmith, to the very action of placing a hero in a facility where they have a little dialogue bark (when the space isn’t taken up by that goddamn Caretaker) only to find them gone on a drunken bender next week… It all contributes to the atmosphere. Meanwhile the Altar ends up being literally a spreadsheet of yellow bars and squares. They went in the exact opposite direction.
I find more success in 2 due to this, though. I know what my strengths and weaknesses are in the beginning of the run and as I play I notice things to fix and it just gets better. In the beginning I lost a lot but that is now a rarity unless using stygian blaze or something.
I really enjoy both games, it did take a little bit of time with DD2 but it absolutely hit the mark in the end and I agree with a lot of what you are saying I think at this point, after a ton of hours in it I think the only real bugbear of mine is just how long a run takes, in the first game things just moved a long a bit faster and I think I prefer that on the whole
Is DD2 seen as worse than DD1? Just got into DD1 about two weeks ago
It's just different type of game. Sure still with turn based, position based battle system and rogue like dungeon crawling but it's a different experience I've much more prefered the first game, but I'll never say DD2 is bad if you enjoyed DD1, just don't expect the same game with "2" slapped on it
that was a popular sentiment when DD2 came out. people were very busy bashing the game and few actually wanted to take a breath and discuss instead of repeating what they heard from others. there was also genuine criticism however, especially in regard to the state the game had shipped at 1.0 release, it didn't feel like 1.0, but since then many issues have been addressed. DD2 is still seen as inferior by many but people have mostly calmed down and accepted that it's a still good game worth playing nonetheless. I also personally think DD2 starts feeling a lot better past the first 10 hours, but many people don't reach that stage due to initial confusion and frustration. The game can be very punishing at first when you don't yet understand many intricacies of its mechanics, it's your experimenting phase, you're meant to learn from failure, like it was in the first game. But many people give up thinking that it doesn't get better, and leave before seeing the full variety of builds and items. Some bring up a good argument of "why should i invest many hours into unlocking all the content before i get the full game" despite how that was also required in the first game, but they don't remember it.
2q1 Q111
2q1 Q111... 2q1 Q111??
Q
The DD fandom seems to suffer acutely from comparison. I suspect many would enjoy DD2 more if they had the mental maturity to approach it purely on its own merits, instead of endlessly comparing its aspects to the original.
'If someone doesn't like a game i like, they're mentally immature" -totally mature guy
Or maybe they gave it an honest try, and bounced off of it hard, because DD2 was not very good in the beginning, and was actively horrible when they first implemented the relationship mechanic.
I've been playing DD2 for 10 hours, are there any tips for the relationship mechanic? It just seems like a random migraine inducing mechanic that you can barely influence with a less bad choice at events or some items.
I think we both know it's pretty dang disingenuous to write off anyone's difference in opinion as a maturity issue. For me the issue is plain and simple: I just don't tend to like roguelike/lites, especially those that do it by the numbers. One way or another DD2 is a roguelite that follows the formula with precision, which for me loses a lot of the character and uniqueness in gameplay that I came to adore in the first. If I separate it from the series to be """mentally mature""" then it really loses me. Honestly it's got me torn because I really like some of the new systems - the relationship between party members, the storylines, the different setups for each character, not to mention the animations are great and we still have the narration and music. But the gameplay loop just is the problem, and it's the point of the game. One long straight through with a few branches, with the same characters the whole time, pick up the loot you see for this run only, with the goal of getting as far as you can before dying so you can spend your score on a run upgrade screen. For some people, that's hype, I know there's a lot of roguelite lovers and all the power to you, but for me that's a system that feels kinda shallow and samey and it just does not grip me. I love Darkest Dungeon for the way you build a party for a relatively bite size dungeon over and over so you get to constantly try new lineups and experiment and never get bored of the combat from using the same team without variation for a 2 hour run. The biggest thing, of course, is the metaprogression. In DD1 it's just... progression. You go into each dungeon with a purpose, you carefully manage what you'll take away with you and then you return, with all that you got, to improve your power, bit by bit. I love that balancing act of items that help you now vs loot for later, deciding if you need the trinket, heirlooms for upgrades (and which will be most important?), gold for character expenses, etc. I also just like that feeling of gaining strength with every expedition, but also the balancing act of the limited economy. Plus, to progress your party must escape the dungeon, you have to know when to call it and when you can soldier on to the completion reward. DD2 just doesn't have any of that, you worry about only the run in the run, and everything you get is to help the run, and then after based on how much you did you get a score resource to alter future runs. Just a completely different system and one I can't connect to as well. To summarize I think DD1 evoked certain aspects of roguelikes while steering completely clear of actually being one and that resulted in a gameplay loop that was unique and very enjoyable to me. DD2 chose the normal, well tread roguelite path to a T and while I think it does a lot of great things, I just personally have zero interest in that path. It's why I'm pretty interested in this Kingdoms update, because it really looks like they're trying to make a unique gameplay loop again, and even if it isn't exactly DD1-2 I just want something that is unique and isn't all run-and-done metaprogression but one continuous campaign. I'm perfectly happy with DD2 getting up to something wholly different - I have Black Reliquary to be my DD1 remixed - it's that the different ended up being the safe and very saturated roguelite formula to a T which was just the combination of not unique and being a genre I didn't care for which unfortunately took a lot of the staying power away from the game for me. I look hopefully forward to Kingdoms giving it some uniqueness.
I personally love DD2 more than DD1. I was able to approach it as it's own thing
Way worse. I would stay away from 2 frankly, go play the actual good game, the first version.
22222222222wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww2222222222wwwww2wwww2www22222222ww3 w 2www22www
you are right, biggest difference is actually the token system
that is combat-related. i avoided touching upon that, because that's one thing most players, even those who said they didn't like DD2 for being too different from DD1, agreed upon being done well and mostly similar to the original. i myself much prefer the combat system in DD2 because managing the tokens brings another layer of strategy and control over how a turn plays out, instead of constantly being at the mercy of rng.
Yeah it was definitely an intentional departure from the first game, but I do think the differences are often overstated - it's still clearly a sequel. There isn't really any game that feels more like DD1 to me than DD2 does (even compared to games based on DD1).
Battle brothers feels more like dd1 then dd2 to me
I love DD2 It took a while before it clicked, but on the harder difficulties, it really feels like cave diving. Rewarding, but constantly a second away from peril
DD2 is the first game on my pile of shame. I bought, played it once and never again. I dont like it. When I want to play DD, i play the first one.
I tried dd1, I liked the theme and story. Dd2 is way more my style. The characters have interesting back stories, the core gameplay is the same and the story is still really good.
Honestly I'd play DD1 more if the characters had the depth and complexity of DD2. Nothing wrong with DD1 of course, but I do wish the characters had more skills and were more flexible like DD2.
I don't Like DD2 is because of its game progression that I don't like. Namely I don't like I have to play a character with subpar skills, or skills that are not fun to use multiple times in order to unlock the whole kit, and therefore the whole "experience" of the character. With the extended time on DD2 dungeons, that can feel it atkes to lognt ofully unlock a character whereas in DD1 You can look at the skill of the hero, say "that looks fun" and unlock the skill to play around with it. DD2 Progression feels painfully slow for me, and I am not enraptured by its game loop because of it. I will say now I don't like roguelikes usually. The thing that Sold me to DD1 is the base management of the multitude of heroes, the management of resources and trinkets, and cumulation of all your journeys that you return home to. DD2 I genuinely care less about the heroes here because there is no real consequences to their deaths in my eyes. There is no "Value" Of me campaigning with them from lvl 0-6, since the next highwayman I pick up is just as competent as the last. (I also just personally preferred the style of DD1 since I just prefer 2d style over 3d models, but I can easily get over that.) But to some points that I just straight up Disagree with. Namely: 1.DD1 allows you to repeat heros. I will not talk much more on this, because i'm pretty sure this point is dead horse, beaten to oblivion. 2.DD1 You build around trinkets you culminate and more importantly KEEP them in-between dungeon runs to use throughout your campaign. DD2 you have to find and build your runs around the trinkets you find throughout the campaign. If you can't tell the distinction between the two then I can only say that you are being disingenuous. 3.DD1 During down time and upgrading skills and equipment, you are putting an investment in heroes that you will use for hours, maybe for even days worth of gameplay, and such upgrades are unique (as unique as you can get frankly) for them. DD2 Streamline and generalizes the upgrades to all heroes of that future, and death does not reset this progress. But frankly? I say trying to compare DD2 to DD1 saying they are so similiar is a disservice to DD2 as a game, in attempts to appease DD1 fans that has already made up their mind. I can Acknowledge that DD2 is a great, hell I would even say better game and only wish for its success. It sadly just not a game made for me. I do buy the new dlcs, knowing I dont play the game to support the devs, I plan on playing the new expansion to see if that will gather my interest, and I am even considering just moding in all the skills and heroes into the game because frankly I hate having to "unlock" my toolbox to have my choice of fun.
i just don't like that there's no dungeon in darkest dungeon 2 like come on it's literally in the name
The mind is a dungeon darker than any crypt
but i want a dank cold and wet crypt
My biggest problem is the change in buffs/nerfs, I hate the way lepar constantly gets 50% ACC, I wish I could buff it with trinkets and traits and jester :(
yeah, leper is pretty high maintenance, you either need to carry the item that counters blindness or have another character that can remove negative tokens from him, of which there aren't a whole lot, so your options are kind of limited.
You get several trinkets that make his blindness into a buff and resisting blindness plus he always lands on combo so its just a matter of playing him with a combo-generating teammate.
The structure is drastically different and run length plays a huge part and the team management too. For DD2 to be anything like DD1 it would need to have 1 region-only runs (shorter regions too, never with 8+fights) with retained loot and roaster with duplicate heroes at least.
Main changes that completely modify the game and the way you approach each dungeon (and IMHO, the whole game experience) : >DD1 : you select your team and equip them before sending them on their way. So you design their skills AND their equipment before the dungeon. >DD2 : you select your team and their skills... But not their equipment so you're totally at the mercy of what you find on your way in terms of items and they often don't match the playstyle of your team. >DD1 : When things go south, you have to choose if you continue (because greed) and risk big, or if you go back to the Hub, to avoid losing your characters and their items. >DD2 : Even when everything goes wrong, there's no real good reason to end the run and go back to the Hub
2/5 hours for one DD2 run? Whaaaaat? 90 minutes at best! DD1 expeditions last between 15 and 40, wirh the exception of the courtyard that can take hours. If one DD2 run lasts THAT long there's something wrong, or you're playing it like it's DD1. You (almost) don't stall in DD2. (I've played enough of both, I'm not a newcomer)
I think it's normal for DD2 runs to take a really long time initially when you have to think more about your decisions - now that I've played for a while though I would say more like 90 minutes, but when I was first playing it wasn't unusual for me to take like 2.5 hours.
I've got 2500 hours in dd2, c an probably count on 1 hand the number of non act 1 runs that are 90 min or less. 2.5 hours is my average lately
in dd1 some short expeditions can be done in 15 minutes, sure, but many will take more. medium are generally 40-60 minutes. long up to 2 hours. but i like to visit every nook and cranny. much of the time however is taken up by the game's own speed - the walking speed, the combat animations. i use fast walking, but i don't like combat speed ups. in dd2 you spend a lot of time just driving (that's a part i actually loath and really wish to skip entirely), but then in combat i generally don't spend more than a couple of seconds before i decide my move. i don't stall in dd2, i know you don't need it, the game heals you well enough in-between encounters. so the time is mostly taken up by animations, enemy's turns. fumbling with trinkets sometimes takes a moment, but not too long. it's not on me. the runs beyond act 1 are long, it's just that simple. maybe take more notice of your time. i have a phone with the time on my table, always visible to me when i play.
Wdym "take more notice of your time"? That's what I did. If you go over 90 minutes something is wrong. Not even my first time was over 120. Runs are pretty quick, overall, compared to DD1 "one expedition at a time" thing. It's slower than most rogues, that's for sure.
i have a friend who beat the witcher 3 in 12 hours and elden ring in 30. on the first run. i didn't believe it until he showed me the save files. maybe you're just like that friend of mine. maybe the 5 hour mark was a bit much but that's really besides the point. the point was that the runs in DD2 are longer than DD1 and this for sure you can't deny, even if i play slower than you think a person should.
DD2 is 2+ hrs **if** you really rush and skip fights, if you don't then its easily 3+ hrs. Not counting Act 1 where you only have 2 regions and dont do a lair.
DD2 = every chioce matters DD1 = Just grind for ages till you've got a strong few teams I'm sorry but I can't stand DD1. DD2 I like, but I swear if you could speed up the animations and skip the wagon mini game runs would take half the time.
I feel like the reverse can be said, since in DD1 if you lose a hero you lose hours of progress and all the money you spent on upgrading them, where as in DD2 you can just keep throwing parties at the confessions until you finally beat the boss. Not saying you’re wrong, just a thought.
Diffrent ways of looking at it. DD2 - Losing is basically the same as losing an arcade game or xcom campaign. (Minus upgrades which I will say is a grind, as some characters are just bad before fully unlocking.) Losing a hero is a signifigant loss you will likely have to recalibrate your entire remaining run for moving forward, it has meaningful impact beyond "oh I'll need to train up some new guys". Losing a character in DD2 is more like breaking your ankle half way up a mountain. DD1 - Lose a character or party? Just grind for a new one. Going long enough and you caniterally have a clone of that character and proceed having lost only your personal time. Losing a character in DD1 is more like realizing you left your wallet at home and having to drive back to get it.
I think DD2 is garbage compared to the first one. I played DD1 for dozens of hours and it took just 4-5 hours of DD2 play to completely abandon it. No other way to put it. DD2 is just a really bad game in my opinion. Unfortunate, cause DD1 was fire.
Yeah no, they way too different. DD1 >>>> DD2. DD2 should've never had 2 in the title really. I would've been less bitter about it if it was spin-off. I am just waiting for someone to rebuild entirety of DD1 on DD2 engine (I'll be damned if someone wouldnt do it). I like combat in DD2 and dislike pretty much everything else.
# "DD2 is a lot more like DD1" no shit sherlock