I’m not even sure if that would make for a better experience though. For example, if it shows that a lot of people die to Sif, does making Sif easier make the game better? He’s already an optional boss.
Or making the Gargoyles easier since that’s a huge death place? They already have an optional summons before the Gargoyles that makes the fight a lot easier, optionally, if you want to use it.
Oh. God. I forgot about the gargoyles. shudder
Sif is not optional. You need the ring from that fight to get to the Four Kings.
You’re right! I get very confused with what’s optional and what’s not in Dark Souls games. Plus what’s easy and what’s hard, which can vary depending on when you tackle it. Sif was apparently pretty hard early on, but I didn’t get to that portion until near the end-game, so that was fairly easy for me.
I was expecting to see the Capra Demon light up in that map like a small sun. I’m kind of disappointed, actually.
Where’s Anor Londo anyway? That bridge with the heavy arrow dudes must have a LOT of red points too. ;)
And your build.
The article says they were cropped from the bottom of the map do to their brightness. :)
Hah! The Ornstein & Smough area would indeed be grossly incandescent. ;)
They actually may have - some stuff was nerfed. People forget what the O&S fight was like at ship.
Yup, Capra Demon and Hellkite Bridge.
I somehow missed Capra first time round, stumbled upon him much later and did him first try.
Those two are really easy, especially when compared to their DS2 version. Most bosses in DS1 are actually much easier than those in the sequel.
I found DS2 a lot easier than DS1. Maybe because I was an old-hand at the Dark Souls gameplay by then.
Same, I only formed that opinion after I replayed DS1 once I finished DS2 a couple times
This is crazy. But wait. Maybe it’s not. You must have played the vanilla version of DS2, not the Scholar of the First Sin edition. That would explain it.
I’m also in the “DS2 is easier than DS1” camp. I generally found the bosses much more manageable, and between the despawning enemies and more frequent summons, I never got stuck at one point for very long.
Except for the DLC.
Yeah, this, for sure.
I actually played both, but SotFS I played entirely in co-op with @ShivaX and playing DS in co-op mode is very much easier than playing solo, and since Dark Souls 2 SotFS overall made co-oping with a friend a lot easier (possible) over DS1 that’s probably why I felt it was easier. Though I did beat DS2 vanilla at launch by myself (I mean, I summoned NPC’s and the odd random player of course, but didn’t play through with Shiva that first time) and still found it overall a better and more level experience than DS1. SotFS was a big jump in difficulty, and I don’t know if I could have solo’d that (I mean, I guess eventually, but would I before I got frustrated and gave up, having already beaten in twice at that point…? Probably not.)
Speaking of, does anyone know if they are keeping the same co-op (completely random) in Dark Souls remastered, or going to a more Dark Souls 3 model where you and a friend can just have the same password and “friends only” options set in the menu? I want this on PC if I can co-op it with Shiva (at last) but if that’s not the case, I’m curious about getting this on the Switch.
It had the opposite effect on me. If you look at the hours played, I spent about half the time in DS2 than I did in DS1. But it felt like a longer slog. The de-spawning enemies and more frequent summons meant that it felt like the game defeated me. Instead of learning how to get past an area and its enemies like I did in DS1, the game started de-spawning enemies right as I felt like I started getting a handle on how to beat them. I used the summons more often because of that feeling of constantly being beaten by the game, and overall I guess you’re right, I got stuck less than in DS1, but in DS1 overcoming that felt much more satisfying. I felt like I overcame challenges. In DS2 it felt like the game helped me out more with summons and by de-spawning because I couldn’t handle it.
OTOH, I never played DS2 vanilla, only SOTFS, so maybe the same wasn’t the case with the base game.
The other big difference is that each time I got stuck in DS1, it was usually on a boss. And fighting it and learning to overcome the fight was something I really relished and enjoyed immensely. In DS2 I got stuck more often on common enemies, not on bosses, which was much more demoralizing for some reason.
I totally agree. After struggling thru DS1 I was prepared and experienced enough to get through DS2 without any great roadblocks. I must have spent days trying to get past O&S the first time in DS1.
Yes.
I guess this is the downside of coming to a series late. The upside is that you get the game cheaper, with all the DLC already included, but on this rare occasion you also get a much harder game.
The other case I can think of is Gothic 2. By the time I got to it, it was already a different game with the DLC built in, making the game harder from the beginning.
You guys are actually making me envious. Maybe I should have somehow tracked down vanilla DS2 instead of SOTFS.
I will do my part and encourage all newcomers to the game not to get the SOTFS edition. I certainly didn’t like the two DLC areas I tried, so that part wasn’t worth it for me anyway.
Edit: Oh hey, I just thought of another one: DiRT Rally, upon Early Access release, had a much gentler learning curve than the final game, because the final game had added much harder locations like Finland and Sweden, and even the hard tarmac track in Germany.