Boy, this game is fucking awful

BB, DS3 and Sekiro happened

>The game was regarded as bad pretty much a week after its release
by who? A couple of people on Yas Forums?

Nah, most people didn't like it because they were DS1 "veterans" mad it was different or because they were graphicsfags seething about the downgrade

All of which are much better games.

SotFS came along, and the sterile mediocrity of DS3 made people appreciate DS2's jank and oddities alot more.

BB is the best game, and the DS2 contrarian sentiment was still low when it came out. It must've been after.

Bloodborne is boring

Most soulsfags hated it because it abandoned shit like good bosses, enemies, level design, atmosphere, etc, for retarded shit like PvP arenas and build autism

>BB literally has 2 builds, both of which have the exact same playstyle, maybe 5 good bosses at most and the rest are unbearably shit
>DS3 is rollspam hell and everything cool gets balanced down for parity instead of letting fun builds be fun
>Sekiro is actually a different game so soulsfags going into it seethed hard that they couldn't just play it like dark souls

Not nearly as boring as every game that came before it and after it

People loved DS2 for the first two weeks, it was only after ecelebs like Lobos and AGS started shitting on it that Yas Forums made an about face. If fireden isn't being a complete piece of shit(which it probably is) you can even go back and check.

yes. i'm stuck at the poison windmill and i have no cure poisons left, so i had to quit the game since they're sold nowhere.

that's the wrong opinion retard

Attached: 134154566122.jpg (1920x1799, 1.31M)

No, it's just ok. Not as good as the others, but far from a complete unplayable atrocity.

yep, like I said, just a couple people on Yas Forums

Attached: Untitled.png (1000x1000, 282.44K)

>b-but at least it’s not x or y
Most brainlet take anyone ever makes

>DS2
>Literally no good bosses until DLC.
>Shit levels
>Shit animations
>Shit controls
>Shit atmosphere
>Shit enemies... like hilariously shitty furfag enemies.
>Slow character moves like he's covered in shit.
>Retarded story that goes nowhere.
Glass houses and stones user. Dark Souls 1 has even worse flaws too

Most people loved Dark Souls 2. Especially the people that had never played a Souls game before. 200-2000 people whining about it on Yas Forums doesn't chance that.

If we're going by MC, BB is the best in that case.

Have you seen the screencap of Yas Forums discovering Iron Keep?

>2 is better than 1
Not in a billion years

so what? That has nothing to do with what was being discussed

3 is worse

The most brainlet take is, "It's [insert my feelings with no argument] and that's why it's bad."
That's a female/soi talking points

>hilariously shitty furfag enemies.

Attached: 1576899465989.gif (300x300, 438.04K)

Attached: 1514766768737.png (1209x933, 48.79K)

All the souls games are awful and you just suffered through them so you could use it like a trophy to hold over other people.

Attached: 1315727763521.gif (275x205, 1.9M)

The point is MC scores have nothing to do with game analysis. DS2 got to fly on the shoulders of one of the most influential games ever in the last 10 years, and it has by far the lowest user score. That says something.

>implying you’re making an argument right now and not just name calling
Bloodborne is boring, cope harder

The only bad bosses in Bloodborne are the witches, the celestial emissary, and micolash, all the rest of them are good to great. Also a good amount of gameplay variety comes from nearly every weapon in the game having two completely unique movesets

They’re not that hard to playthrough, get filtered

Nobody said that. I said Dark Souls 1 has worse flaws, not that it's a worse game. When your flaws are still shit like "DS3 has too much rollspam," while Dark Souls 1 basically has "complete dogshit enemies, bosses, and gameplay," it's a hard sell to rate games based on flaws.

>and it has by far the lowest user score. That says something.
what it says is that it's not as good as the other entries but that it's still a good game, anything more, like it being "regarded as bad pretty much a week after its release" is mere projection based on absolutely no traceable sources of significant amount.

It’s literally the same as Dark Souls, there’s no change, and off the top of my head One Reborn and Mergo are pretty bland

>Cleric beast aka fight the camera simulator
>Rom
>Booodstarv-oh wait the fights already over
>Meme presence
>Shadows of yawnham
>One reborn
>These aren't shit according to bbfags

BB is the highest rated game in the series, it's said to be the best game of that style by its own director. You need to produce the argument for your low-weighted opinion, not me

>if I can think of a funny meme name for the boss that means it's shit

Dark 1 has a lot of good enemies and bosses though

Bloodborne is only touted as the best because muh exclusivity

If you come to the game expecting the strengths of the previous games, Dark Souls 2 is going to be a shit game. If its your first game and you don't know any better, you might like it. The retarded phrase, "it's a good game but not a good souls game," applies because it doesn't have the strengths of the previous games, even if you think it's good for what it is.

It has literally one enemy that poses a threat to the player and every demon boss is trash. The good bosses are also primitive, and it has the series' worst boss.

Defend those "bosses"

It's touted as the best because it has the best gameplay

Oh how the mighty have fallen as to have Yas Forumsirgins point at metacritic and say “SEE SEE ITS A GOOD GAME THE PROOF IS RIGHT HERE”, I don’t give a shit about your opinion or Miyazaki or anyone else who got suckered into buying a console with one game like myself

>one enemy
It’s got more than one that’ll fuck your day and while all the demons are trash the worst bosses are in 2

Why bother when you're just going to post crying basedjaks or something

You need to provide a basis for your contrary argument. You haven't. Arguments without evidence can be dismissed without consideration

Literally every boss before Dark Souls 2 DLC is primitive caveman bullshit not even worth fighting. Demon's, Dark 1, and Dark 2 all have shit enemies. Good enemies didn't appear until BB.

>If you come to the game expecting the strengths of the previous games, Dark Souls 2 is going to be a shit game
It is not going to be a "shit game". It is going to be a "shit game" relative to the other entries (so it could still be a quality game in general, which it is). I realize that you realize this also by what you state later in your post but the real issue here is that at the end of the day there really isn't any source-able information for people saying the game is actually shit. Aside from a couple of shitposts on Yas Forums it's widely praised even by people who played DS1 and/or Demon's first and you cannot prove otherwise

Demon's at least had some cool enemy designs, like the bugbears or the shadow people in 4-2

>most people
more like a few e-celebs and those who parroted their opinions

>>Literally no good bosses until DLC.
What are good bosses from DS1 and BB in your opinion?

I'll take that as a concession

If all the things I liked about Dark Souls 1 are really bad in Dark Souls 2 and I dislike Dark Souls 2 for these reasons, that information is sourced. If you go down the proof road, it ends with nobody being able to prove if any game period is good or bad, and you can't prove the game is good either.

First and only Dark Souls game I've played. Didn't see the appeal.
I wonder if I can still get a refund.

Attached: 1569865184.jpg (636x155, 50.94K)

>applies because it doesn't have the strengths of the previous games
Isn't character customization and dungeon crawling part of the appeal of the series? Doesn't DS2 excel at those things?

Nah I'm just not interested in having an actual conversation with a reductive faggot

>If you go down the proof road, it ends with nobody being able to prove if any game period is good or bad,
we already went down the proof road lmao, fags like you just refuse to open your eyes because you want to live in your little fantasy land where everyone hates DSII
sources:

Alright, Bloodborne is boring because it’s too linear and too one note, warping everytime you want to buy something is retarded and it has mostly forgettable bosses that you fight in a nicely lit arena and there’s nothing more to it then that. None of the areas are that fun to explore and the combat is literally the same as Dark Souls

DS1
None are great. Artorias and Manus are easily the best, but really only as good as something like Logarious despite being incredibly simple, with smaller movesets, tiny HP pools, and lacking phases.
BB
Plenty. Any boss with multiple phases is pretty good, with only shit like The One, Cleric, Darkbeast, Rom, and a few others feeling weak.

>Bloodborne has good enemies
Same flavor of run up to you and slash or jump on you? No thanks

This isn't proof. It's a collection of arbitrary opinions and proves literally nothing. I told you that you wouldn't like where this went.

Logarious fucking sucks man, barebones and I only die to him when he uses his curse projectiles

>It's a collection of arbitrary opinions and proves literally nothing
>arbitrary
ok retard.
>proves literally nothing
it proves more than people shitting on the game on an anonymous image board where you can't actually get an accurate count of the amount of unique posters doing so. My proof outweighs your proof by a huge amount of sources and thus it is the more valuable proof. Sorry but that's just objective fact and is how general averages and scores of almost all media/literature/art work.