I played Dark Souls 1 and i was very calmed down, not to be frustratet, because the char goes to dies. This made the "learn-effect" where my Enemy could be.
Dark Souls 2 played i a bit, because DS 1 is not ready yet. (Big Ogre has new Trick to fell his Corpse to my char, i had "noticed" this trick, but i was surprised too, that this Ogre catched my corpse and munches as his "food". So was i on way to weak... and at this moment been calmed, but this game IS very fair. Not for "Storytelling-Pussies", this is for the Hardcore RPGers.
So yesterday i had beaten a Capras-Demon and i'm on way to the deep under the undead-town. I hate surprises!!!
So I actually think Sen's Fortress has been my favorite location thus far, oddly enough. The traps are all easily avoidable, and there are some incredibly useful items available (no less than 3 rings and a pre-made lightning spear). All you really need is a bunch of wooden arrows and the patience to get the lay of the land, and you're golden. I reached the second bonfire and worked my way up to the fire boulder tossing giant. Easily done since he can't hit you through the doorway, and no respawn. With him out of the way, I'm thinking about sticking around and farming, since there are 3 or 4 extremely easy Balder Knights who give 500 souls apiece, and I'm hoping also build up some humanity, at which point I'll kindle and summon help for the Iron Golem (and I'm told the summon can basically take him out on it's own, so not much worry there). All in all, seemingly intimidating but in actuality, it's probably the easiest area I've been in thus far, relatively speaking.
As expected, with the summon, Iron Golem hardly even felt like a boss fight. Overall I come away from here with many resistance and specific use rings, an abundance of Titanite, and access to a vendor who can sell me upgrades for more at pretty much any time. Now it's on to Anor Londo, where I get the feeling things are about to amp up considerably.
So, perhaps the most satisfying moment of Dark Souls thus far (isn't every step that way though??)....getting to Anor Londo and spending 30-45 minutes mastering how to fight the Sentinels, at which point you can farm 9000 souls at a time to your heart's content. On top of that?? Coming to the realization that Pyromancy is essentially free magic in terms of character progression, only limited by your souls for upgrading your flame (though this was apparently remedied in the sequel).
Speaking of Dark Souls 2, I also created a character to explore the first part of the sequel. My first impressions are that it is everything you would expect a sequel to be. A much more fluid and intuitive UI, small changes that are nonetheless familiar, and a greater focus on story and location (but still bare bones compared to any other game). It's not as monolithic as Dark Souls, the graphics are more colorful and cartoonish. If Dark Souls is Led Zeppelin IV, then Dark Souls 2 feels like Physical Graffiti.
While I've taken both the Gargoyles down and moved the bridge in Anor Londo, I'm just in Sentinel farming mode at the moment, and I've spent a fair amount of time getting acquainted with the sequel. Initial thoughts;
1.) Drangleic and Lordran could almost certainly be the same place, simply separated by aeons of time. Majula certainly feels like Firelink. I know there are alot of theories about this, and you could read almost anything into this game, but this one seems the most powerful for me.
2.) Forest of the Fallen Giants (to me at least) has provided an even greater challenge thus far than the Undead Burg as an opening area, though that may because I'm playing a primary magic user who doesn't yet have the stats to use a decent shield, and that Scholar of the First Sin apparently re-tuned the entire game.
3.) The fact that some enemies stop re-spawning after you kill them enough has me of two minds. As someone who is "abusing" (though I don't believe in abusing mechanics, if they are in the game and not a bug, they are valid) farming in Dark Souls right now, I'm slightly dismayed you can't do that in Dark Souls 2. On the other hand, it makes your path back a hell of a lot easier and quicker, and also forces you to not horde your souls, as you may not be able to build them back up again without taking on tougher enemies.
Overall, it's more than a worthy successor. What it changes (Estus Flasks and Life Gems especially, as well as new rules on stats) isn't as important as what it keeps the same. While I have very little doubt that Dark Souls is the greater game on a whole (for numerous reasons), I enjoy playing Dark Soul 2 even more than I do the first.
Edit: Scratch what I said about the changes....the fact that your max health bar goes down to 50% after enough deaths (like a curse in the first game) is absolute nonsense. Sure I can use effigies, but on a particularly tough boss, you may just run out. And with no more unlimited farming, even being able to buy them eventually becomes a problem. Furthermore, I JUST realized I played nearly the ENTIRE first area at half-health. And have been trying to take down the Pursuer this way....another rage-quit moment, worse than the Capra Demon....though I've made the mistake possibly of thinking I have to take him down now, when in fact the area he guards is significantly higher level than I should be going to next anyway. And yes, I know about the bastila trick, hasn't quite worked for me yet ....
So Scholar of the First Sin really takes your choices and your actions to a whole new level. For the cautious player, there is really no benefit to do anything but get one small area down pat, farm it safely until you get every last soul you can squeeze out of it til the enemies stop spawning, go spend them, and THEN move on. Apparently there is a Ring of Binding that limits your death penalty to a minimum of 80% health instead of 50%, which is good to know, but that's a damn near mandatory item for a good chunk of your game if you are the kind of player I am. Then again, I'm impressed I did as well as I did and one-shot The Last Giant while essentially being cursed, even if the Pursuer was too much for me in that state. Things are slightly better in Heide's Tower of Flame, but I'm essentially just farming these Sentinels until they disappear, then moving on from there. I can't understand how anyone would think Dark Souls 2 is easier than the first game in any way, but I have a very limited sample size.
@jjstraka34 Co-Op is great way of farming souls and restoring humanity. This makes DS2 pretty easy, as coop is DS1 is pretty limited. Seldom get summoned, or see signs.
Also magic is the easiest way to beat DS2, especially with the lock on range buffed.
Yeah, I can imagine about the summoning, but I'm playing both as a single-player game, I don't even have online turned on at the moment, since I have no interest in the PVP and Co-op portions of the game (or ANY game really). It does make things alot tougher, but delving further into information about DS2, there are way to work around both the Human Effigy and eventual no-respawning, be it through Covenants or Bonfire Aesthetics. We'll see what happens. Playing both at the same time is causing me to think very highly of Dark Souls 2 in terms of setting and gameplay, but some very questionable design choices made to fix problems that didn't really exist in the first place. The one "rogue-like" element in Dark Souls is that you are punished for death, but that punishment is far harsher in Dark Souls 2, infinitely harsher really (it's essentially like getting cursed in the first game), and almost discourages the "try til you succeed" feeling of the first game.
And the changes in Scholar of the First Sin feel obvious and tacked on, even for someone who has never played the original game. I'll bet alot that there was no Iron Turtle on the walkway with all the gunpowder in the first area, and I'd bet my life savings that there was no dragon guarding the drawbridge to the Cathedral in Heide's Tower of Flame.
Took down the Dragon by luring him to the edge of his platform and shooting him with Soul Arrows with the binoculars. I have no problem exploiting or "cheesing" anything in this game. Why would such items and combos be available if not to encourage being creative beyond the parrying, dodging, and strafing that seems to dominate 90% of the tutorials on these games?? While there are many notable exceptions, the vast majority of the enemies in this game seem most easily dealt with by running up to or hugging their left or right side, then doing a double-roll dodge while waiting for their 1-3 move attack combo to leave them open for a shot. Anyway, I picked up the Ring of Binding, which cuts your Hollow penalty down to 80% health, which is certainly more doable, though this seems like an almost mandatory piece of equipment (which might be why it is very easy to come by, all things considered).
Continuing with the sequel for a bit....the Dragonrider in Heide's Tower of Flame was the first boss in either game that I took absolutely no damage to. I can't imagine anyone wouldn't find him relatively easy, but the more I find out about these games, the more I learn that different people struggle and excel against different bosses, which is another amazing thing about it.
I've continued with the strategy of farming until de-spawn, then moving further. Once my spells run out, I retreat to the bonfire. No-Man's Wharf is excellent, the tried and true lost pirate cove, Dark Souls-style. The areas in DS2 do feel more like individual scenarios moreso than DS1, but that's only because they don't constantly circle back on one another. Each area in the original game is just as unique, it's just that they don't change as drastically as quickly. And while both games allow you the freedom to do certain things right away, they are also designed (both of them) to eventually funnel you into one or two areas that are appropriate for your skill level, especially on a first play-through. Taking the Master Key as the gift in DS1 might literally be the worst thing you could do as a new player. Great for speed runs, but not for truly experiencing the game.
I'm torn....I'm farming Sentinels in DS1 to level up my Pyromancy before hitting the harder areas of Anor Londo, but I'm finding that DS2 has me just as enthralled. In all, I've probably put in 40-50 hours in both games, and what I can tell from really diving into both is that I'm certainly getting BETTER at playing Dark Souls (which is a skill that is unlike any other video-game you've ever played), though that still means I'm pretty terrible. I think I mostly get ahead by over-leveling, but farming and grinding are a time-honored RPG tradition that I'm more than happy to indulge in these games.
This boss in footage is like a mimic. You think it's a part of a tree and than surprise. Wish it'll have more of this mechanic.
I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise but that looks very much like Bloodbourne, even more so than Dark Souls. I was not impressed with Bloodbourne, but at least part of that was I wanted something that was knights and wizards instead of gothic European, so that might have soured the experience a bit as far as I was concerned.
@jjstraka34 - don't get bogged down in the sequel until you finish the first one. It is well worth the effort.
in case you didn't notice, if you are hollow in DS1, you can't be invaded and there really isn't a whole lot of downside. The upside is that you will have access to more tips from other players and the coop is at it's best in Anor Londo. Once you get to a certain point there is a loop that includes a fun boss battle, an AWESOME blacksmith, the ability to warp anywhere in the game and a nice farming area where you can literally wrack up 100k souls (assuming you coop) per pass. So very much worth it for rounding out your character.
Regarding pyromancy (in DS1), it is 'Free magic', sort of. The cost of increasing your pyromancy flame does get expensive after a while. And there is a practical upper limit that Sorcery can definitely surpass. My Sorcerer eventually got to the point where I was almost one-shotting Bosses, something that Pyromancy can not do. Crystal Soul spear (or homing crystal soul mass) along with a few magic items and a well built sorcerer will definitely out-class pyromancy in terms of damage potential (PvE, not necessarily PvP).
Yeah, like I mentioned above, I don't even have either of these games connected to the online component. I know it's a huge part of what makes these games popular, but it isn't for me. Thankfully they work great as solo games as well, though it's certainly more of a challenge in most places. I'm enjoying both games, and playing one has made me appreciate and get better at the other, and vice-versa. I intend to finish both, eventually.
As for Dark Souls 3, who knows. It's very difficult to maintain innovation and quality more than two games when you are essentially using the exact same engine. Even longtime stalwarts like Zelda and Final Fantasy adhere to this, as they always change things up long before things get too stale. And you have Bloodborne, which I obviously haven't played not owning a console, but it certainly seems to be much faster-paced and focused on aggression and action, which is really the exact opposite of the deliberate pace and cautiousness of Dark Souls. Love the Lovecraftian element (though they almost seem to go overboard with it) but I'm certainly not spending $400 dollars just to be able to play the game, and it's never coming to the PC. Dark Souls 3 inevitably is going to have Bloodborne seeping into it a bit. And watching the videos of the first area, it doesn't seem bad, but stale, much like Fallout 4 in a way. It has nothing to do with it not being a good, competent title that can be easily enjoyed. It's about going to the well too many times. Another Dragon flying down on a perch and engulfing the area you need to pass in flames. I haven't even finished either game, and I've already seen this twice. Icewind Dale II suffered from this, Might and Magic VIII suffered from it. A third Zelda game on the 64 after Majora's Mask would have suffered from it as well. If you throw in Demon Soul's (another game I unfortunately cannot play without a console) Dark Souls 3 is going to the 5th game that is essentially running on the exact same engine.
On a more positive note....I heard a great tidbit about Hidetaka Miyazaki that really explains in a quite beautiful way why the lore in Dark Souls is so vague and unknowable. He was apparently a huge fan of Western fantasy literature, but he had very limited ability to read English. So he would attempt to read the books, but only came away with small moments, ideas, and snippets about what the story was actually about, so he was unable to tie the story together even though he was very interested in the material. Amazing, but makes sense....
So after losing all my saves I said screw it and started up another DS2 run. My last run was a full Hex build and the one before that was a 40/40 quality build, with pyro on the side. So this time time I wanted to do something different and ended up with a full Dex build "which turnied into a quality build later anyways, but with higher DEX than STR", that had absolutely no magic in it whatsoever, but this is no ordinary Dex build, as you see it is the Ultra Greatsword Dex build and wow is it effective. So I'm using the Drakewing Ultra Greatsword, "which by the way is my new favorite weapon in the game" It has a D scaling in STR and a B in Dex and it's twohanded strong attack shoots a projectile, which is awesome because it counts as a separate attack from actually swinging the sword, so that means if you time things right and hit your opponent with both at once you're hitting for about 1200 dmg. Which is great for pvp as most people will panic if they lose most of there health in one hit and even better for pve as enemies are really stupid and you one shot almost any normal dudes including the basic DLC warriors. Learning the ways of the Ultra Greatsword took quite awhile, because you have to learn not to auto lock-on to targets and actually physically aim your attacks with the analog stick/mouse, I've also found I had stopped using shields this run, it wasn't a silly rule I set for myself, I just started twohanding my weapons early on and then when I finally got my DW sword I found I needed a fast weapon on my offhand far more than a shield.
This build is really quite weird, because normally I'm one of those people who just loves to lvl up to the highest possible point. My dude is sitting at around about lvl 170 something and I don't feel the need to add anything more to him and truthfully his build was done 10 lvls ago. All my previous toons got around about to be between 200 and 250ish before I stopped playing them. Now when I end up with a bunch of souls it's like 'welp time to buy more gold pine resin and repair powder, I guess'.
Anyway the actual build, well the important bits anyway,
50 VIG, because health is good.
50 DEX and 40 STR, for getting the most out of my weapons.
33 ADP, cause I have like 1 ATT so I needed to really pump this stat to get the 105 agility, "Oh random tip having 105 agility is really important, agility speeds up certain actions like chugging your estus flash or crushing a life gem and 105 is the only reasonable number to get too, the next one that actually does something is 116 and that would take 96 ADP to get, so yeah 105 agility is just fine"
For weapons I have the Drakewing Ultra Greatsword as my main, then the warped blade on my off hand for quick finishers against wounded opponents and for parrys. Oh and the hunter's black bow, for dealing with mage and wounded people running away in pvp.
For rings I use the third dragon ring, flynns ring, the bracing knuckle ring +2 and the stone ring. I havn't gone to pick up the ring of blades +2 yet, but when I do, I'll probably trade either flynns or stone ring out for it.
And there you have it, my random wall of text about how I spent the last few days XD
OH Oh oh , with this build I killed Raime on my third try, last time it took a full afternoon to beat him and I was better at the game then, this build just destroys pve, he died in like 8 hits or something.
@jjstraka34 - I also am not a huge fan of the adversarial component so inherent in the Dark Souls games. Far from it. I've been known to rage quit simply because some yahoo who was bored and immature enough to think that ruining someone else's game was a 'Fun thing to do'. Never the less, I never had more fun in the game than doing Anor Londo coop run. I'd recommend it at least once, just to see if it is worth it for your game play style.
Bloodbourne is the same engine "More or less", but the game play has a very different feel (at least to me). The video above just looks significantly more 'Bloodbourne' than it does Dark Souls. After putting in more than 400 hours on Dark Souls and maybe another 350 into Dark Souls 2 but not being able to get beyond 4-5 hours of Bloodbourne, I will be significantly disappointed if Dark Souls 3 is Bloodbourne but with a Dark Souls slap of paint on top. But that's just me.
Bloodborne (from the videos and gameplay that I've watched) is focused totally on offensive-minded melee combat. The gun is (from what I can tell) used as a timed buff to your next melee hits. It's very odd indeed in a game that is focused on monster hunters that they didn't make use of guns more. Plus the lack of shield and magic to any real extent, and you have a game that is running in the Dark Souls engine, but ends up being like a mix of Devil May Cry/Dark Souls, and far more of an action game, while the more I play Dark Souls the more it feels more like a true RPG even with it's focus on action.
I highly doubt the Bloodborne influence will be anything more than graphical. If Dark Souls 3 has roughly the same system requirements as Scholar of the First Sin, I'll pick it up (Dark Souls 2, Witcher 2 and Skyrim are about where my laptop peaks). If not, I'll stick with what I have.
I highly doubt the Bloodborne influence will be anything more than graphical. If Dark Souls 3 has roughly the same system requirements as Scholar of the First Sin, I'll pick it up (Dark Souls 2, Witcher 2 and Skyrim are about where my laptop peaks). If not, I'll stick with what I have.
Again, the video that was shown, looked very much the reverse of what you indicate. It looks to me like the core game play was Bloodbourne rather than Dark Souls and that the 'graphical' enhancement was the only test towards dark Souls.
If it means anything, I think you will find that in Dark Souls 2, there is a much higher emphasis on dancing around and avoiding damage than shield and defense style. Bloodbourne actually takes that a bit further still, but along the same lines.
My sense is that the game play has evolved from Demon Souls to Dark Souls 1 to Dark Souls 2 to Bloodbourne. And that Dark Souls 3 will be a continuation along that line of development. I hope I am wrong, but if I am not I will have a decision to make when Dark Souls 3 comes out as to if I am going to continue the series.
Bloodborne is similar in athmosphere and level design to DS and they said DS3 will be going to the roots. So, all 3 games could have some similarities with darker tone. From the lore perspective this will be age of the ash. So, ashen textures and gloomy lighting could dominate. I wouldn't expect Majula's sunny day in it. The gameplay seems as modified Bloodborne template. We'll see more how will that change in beta.
The gameplay seems as modified Bloodborne template. We'll see more how will that change in beta.
This is more or less what I was alluding to and what I fear the most. While I agree that Bloodbourne couldn't have existed without Dark Souls and that it is a progression "of sorts", I felt that the combat was going in a direction away from what worked in Dark Souls 1 & 2 in favor of something else. I Hope that Dark Souls 3 isn't yet another step along that path, but strongly suggest from the video (and other things I have read online) that I will be disappointed on that front.
I agree with you in the sense of the bosses and the hordes of enemies. One thing I've learned is that you AT MOST want to be dealing with 3 weak enemies at once in Dark Souls, and you damn sure don't want to be dealing with 5 or more, or more than 1 powerful one at a time. I mean, does that boss battle against the tree actually have that many trash mobs milling about during it?? I watched an absolutely insane video of a boss fight in Bloodborne that takes place in the middle of the ocean against a spider and endless waves of his spawn, and this reminds me of that. Dark Souls 1 and 2 basically condition you to look up and around every corner if you want to succeed and not get eviscerated, and even then, you usually do. The entire point of Dark Souls combat seems to be tactically taking out enemies and avoiding large groups of mobs. Having waves of pitchfork and lantern wielding undead pursuing you while a giant tree tries to stomp you into the ground seems like a bit much.
I kind of see the frantic nature of Bloodnorne combat as a kind of progression for the sake of more veteran souls players.
For instance, in Dark Souls, walking into the Undead Parish room with 3 Baldur Knights was a huge mistake, they kicked my ass and really got my blood pumping even when I went back and took a couple tries to get them. Having gone through more playthroughs now, and beaten the other games as well, that room is almost boring.
I can see that the changes from Dark Souls to Bloodborne seem excessive for players who like knowing how and when things will react, or players who haven't been trained up by the other games. That said, the souls games have a reputation for being hard, and veteran players will dance around challenges if nothing is changed to keep pace with them. You can see this in some of the response to DS2.
Dark Souls was enough of a difficulty step up from Demons Souls, but Dark Souls 2 was not noticeably more difficult than Dark Souls so it never got me wary about entering a room. Bloodborne had me wary almost all the time because the enemies are just so vicious.
It's unfortunate that so many of the mechanics in Dark Souls were dropped or marginalized in Bloodborne, but I can't see a good way that the difficulty could have been raised without doing that. Gwyn can almost be ignored if you have a good shield, so we lost shields. Titanite demons can be calmly sidestepped to death because their attacks are so slow, big things attack fast now. Only the dart spitters stand a chance against you if you have any kind of range, so spells and projectiles are less useful. The Gaping dragon just kind of wanders around its arena until it dies, hardly reacting to where you are, so now arenas are much smaller and bosses are much faster.
Overall, the changes really helped rekindle my enjoyment in From Software's games. So I guess my vote is, don't discount the changes out of hand, ignore it for now sure, but maybe come back when you find that you've memorized the capabilities and responses of every enemy in DS1 and DS2 and you're getting bored of them. Then you might find Bloodborne (and maybe DS3 if it really swings that way) a bit more appealing.
I can definitely speak to alot of what you are saying, BUT that may be the big difference between people who come to Dark Souls from the perspective of a PC RPG fan as opposed to your typical console gamer. Generally speaking, CRPG players like figuring out the systems, items, resistances, elemental damage, upgrade paths, etc. I've spoken about this in some of my posts as I've gone through. I didn't beat the Chaos Witch because I mastered dodging, parrying, and blocking. I beat it because I equipped the best fire resist gear I had available, buffed my melee damage abilities with Power Within, and used the Humanity necessary to both fight Mildred to make her available and to summon her for the fight.
As for examples like the Titanite Demon being slow and good shield being able to absorb anything, well....yeah....I'm farming the Sentinels in Anor Londo right now when I'm playing Dark Souls. They are massive metal statues, it would be absurd if they were as agile as more lithe creatures. And a great shield should absorb most anything, especially if it's upgraded. It speaks to a mindset. I've noticed alot of comments on Souls videos whose advice is always "parry". Learn to parry the Black Knight, you can parry Gwyn, parry the Pursuer. I don't doubt it's the easiest way if you've mastered it, but there is alot more to the game and what can be used to defeat enemies than a nifty timing trick.
Even my first time encountering the Church full of Balder Knights, I don't think I have EVER not taken them on one at a time, because the game discourages doing so. I have killed them a hundred times between the 3, and I don't lament the challenge not being there, I view them as souls to acquire to help take down a challenge I haven't mastered yet. That's been the essence of Dark Souls for me. Mastering areas and using the items and the time spent there to earn better stats and upgrades to help me climb the next mountain. The challenge is always going to be there in Dark Souls, unless you spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours playing. There is NG+ up the wazoo. There is a ring in Dark Souls 2 that serves no purpose other than to double enemy health. People do Gwyn runs at Soul Level 1. I'm glad Dark Souls is challenging, but I'm also glad it's far from impossible. Bloodborne (and again, I can only go by what I see in videos) seems to be appealing to the type of Souls player who ascribes to the "learn to parry or get the f' out" frame of mind. And yeah, you can stun and backstab your way through the entire game if you want. Hell, even if you don't parry you can double roll and strafe through most of it anyway. None of the areas are hard once you memorize them. The bosses are a different story. I NEVER want to fight the Capra Demon again, on any character. People struggle with different things in these games.
All that aside, I'd actually love to play Bloodborne, but much like Demon's Souls, it is a Sony exclusive and we'll never see either on PC. And while I'm sure they're awesome, they aren't worth a $500-600 investment to get both systems and the games.
I've never learned to parry either. I've tried a few times to master it, but just never got the timing down right. It's a neat trick, I suppose and I have seen some PVPers and some walkthroughs that really make it look cool. I'd much rather slaughter something at range.
it may look like Bloodborne will never come to the PC. Don't be sure about that. I don't know about any plans currently, but never discount the power of companies wanting to maximize their investment or the effects of thousands of fans clambering for something to make it happen. I never thought that they would make a Baldur's Gate EE game.
After re-reading @jjstraka34's post, I felt the need to address this again. There is no "One strategy is THE BEST" in either Dark Souls 1 or 2 that I am aware of. While parrying and rolling are definitely solid strategies, they aren't the end all and be all of the game upon which if you don't learn them you will never beat/excel at the game.
I myself defeated Quelaag several times not through parrying, but merely by running away and killing her from range with a bow. Like you, I studied her weaknesses and strategies and figured out what was best/easiest for my play style and I took her down. Then I took in a warrior who only had a BIG sword and had to find a different way. I turtled up with as much fire resistance as I could find and hit and run. When I took my sorcerer in, I blasted the witch several times with soul spear and that was all she wrote. So there are absolutely different strategies to win the day.
The Balder knights in the Undead Parish were initially tough for me as well. After getting spa---d by them gang jumping me the first time, I was terrified of them. I eventually found out how to take them on one at a time. Later, I figured out how to take them on en-mass. Later still in the game, I would jump them just because. Back-stab one, killing him outright then line up the other two between the rows of pews in the church and knock em down. Observation and strategy.
The Capra demon was also initially scary as crap for me. Now I don't fear him. And considering that you can face as many as 4 at a time later in the game, you won't either. He is intended to be really scary at first. Mission successful. But don't make him tougher than he actually is merely because you didn't have the strategy/skill that you will get (and you will get there unless you give up).
I don't see Bloodbourne as any different. Nor do I see it as only playable by someone who has "Beat the F--- out of Dark Souls", nor is it 100% frenzied zerg rush monsters such that you can't explore and plan and tactically take out opponents. Yes, even as little as I got into the game, there are some skills that present themselves to learn. But then that was the way I was at the beginning of Dark Souls as well.
Finally, don't think that all 'Console gamers' are all about Halo and Gears of War of mad rush and big damage explosions. As a long time console gamer (and PC gamer), I've played all of the tomb raider games where you needed to figure out how to solve a puzzle or end a monster. I've played several survival horror games where the name of the game is tactical strategy and resource management and if you don't take it one step at a time you are dead. Consoles have come a LONG way and there are a lot of different flavors of games out there. Don't make the mistake of pigeon holing console gamers as not being careful and cautious players.
Just about every walk-through of Dark Souls that I found online offered the 'rush to point x' strategy. that didn't work for me so I found the cautious, methodically take everything down in order, strategy. You CAN do it. And particularly in the catacombs on the way to Tomb of the Giants. Good luck and have fun with it.
Has anyone here played 'Lords of the Fallen'? It plays very much like Dark Souls but is clearly inferior to that title. Never the less, it is quite fun to play and has a lot of potential.
@the_spyder I played through Lords of the Fallen and it felt like a fat version of DS, no matter how you build your character he is always slow and fat and as somebody who always plays fast characters in DS this annoyed the crap out of me. The game had next to no replayablity, you could unlock all the weapons and gear on your first run and with no pvp, there felt like no reason to ever go back to it. The game was also pretty short, I think my run only took about 25 hrs and that's with all of the special boss weapons unlocked. The boss battles were ok I suppose, nothing amazing, nothing really memorable, I remember the shield dude, scythe dude and big poison dude were jokes and the final boss was the biggest joke of all. Really that last fight was a let down. There was a really really hard boss, but he was DLC and he was more cheap than hard and also buggy. The story is grimdark nonsense and Harken the protagonist is a huge douche-bag.
All in all a very average game, I wouldn't recommend this game unless it was at least 75% off.
It's funny but a lot of your review actually encourages me. I've found just in the first few hours of the game that (and I am playing a warrior type in heavy armor) I could get behind opponents actually easier than I could in DS. Of course these are early enemies so I might be jumping the gun a bit but I can wear heavy armor and still get back stabs in.
I am quite happy with the "No multiplayer". I think that was a huge problem (for my personal and subjective game play style) that Dark Souls was so heavily focused on multi-player. I hated when people invaded my game unbidden and with no other intent but to screw with weaker players. I figured out how you could get around that particular aspect, but it still bothered me. I actually participated online with a group of Dark Souls players and found that 95% of them were, well not very nice people. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but not much of one. I had a bunch of players tell me "If you don't like being invaded, don't play online." What jerks.... But I digress.
I faced off against the shield boss last night. Maybe it is because I have played so many hours at Dark Souls, but he actually wasn't that much of a challenge. Well, that is to say that he killed me on my first try, but I almost had him before he did and I now know what to expect so I think I'll do fine my second pass. I do find the game significantly easier than Dark Souls on the whole, at least early on. But that is actually not a bad thing.
As for the length, I'd read that prior to purchasing so I went in expecting it. It is a relief that I am not looking at another 300 hour long game. And considering that the game was almost free (I got it on sale and with points that dropped the price even further), I expect to get what I paid for. We will see what my impressions are after I finish.
It is clear that the game is far inferior to Dark Souls right from the get-go. Your customization is fairly limited and it is easier than that game. Plus the short length and I didn't expect to be blown away. But I do find myself in need of something that isn't Dark Souls, yet is similar enough that I enjoy it. I consider it like a Dark Souls Smokers patch to ween off the addiction.
Hey @the_spyder on the multiplayer aspect of DS I completely understand, when I started out I hated being invaded, now I relish the challenge but that's a whole different topic. I have to say your take on the brotherhood, saying that they are all only out to ruin other peoples games or hunt weak players, I can't really agree with that. Yes there are monster level D-bags, hackers and griefers in the community, but it is a online gaming community so there with always be D-bags and griefers. Most red phantoms I've encountered have waited for me to heal before engaging, or bowed/waved hello, a sign of a honorable duel. Most won't backstab you while you're engaged with another enemy, hell if you are invaded by a red phantom, while already fighting a red phantom, etiquette dictates the phantoms fight each other for the chance to fight you, they could just gang up on you, but they never. Also you have to realize some people are just trying to achievement hunt, do you have any idea what you have to do to reach max level in the brotherhood? Most covenants only need about 30 of something to unlock all their stuff, the brotherhood needs 500, you get 1 point for winning a duel in the arena and 2 for killing blue phantoms coming in to help your prey.
A lot of bloodbros just want to fight and that's fine, that's what dark souls is for. In any pvp area you will always see tonnes of red summon signs on the floor, take Old Iron keep bridge for example, there will pretty much always be red summon signs on that bridge, sometimes more red signs than dragon eyes, too my shame.
Anyway the only way I can see for a red phantom to ruin your game is to invade once you have already died once and on a soul retrieval run, that is annoying but soul farming really isn't a problem as long as the Giant King exists. If you have a bunch of souls and are scared of losing them, Just put on a Ring of Life Protection or Ring of Soul Protection and then you retain your souls on death.
Another thing you can do is join "the way of the blue" is the covenant the crestfallen warrior wants you to join in Majula. When you are invaded, the invader gets invaded by a blue sentinel "If one is online at the time."
Ways to deal with invaders if you are a full on pve turtle."not saying you are, but a lot of pve players do just turtle up." First off if you don't care about honorable duels, you can chug estus and red phantoms can't they can only use the warmth spell or healing miracles, warmth spell helps you both and healing miracles have a fairly long casting time and if you stick on them they won't be able to cast them, so just trade damage and then heal. Poison them. Pick up one of the few extremely over powered noob weapons and then just win by mashing R1/RB or whatever it is on a keyboard. The weapons I'm talking about are Chaos blade, Ice rapier, Red Rust Twinblade and Warped sword"to a lesser extent. Most of the invaders you fight will be average players, it is a very rare thing to fight a invader who actually has the patience to set a trap or a pvp god who's reverse backstepping, animation cancelling and all that other good stuff.
Also most pvp guys don't level passed 150. Level 150 is where a build is considered complete, so for the best pvp experience most players stay 150 and some go up to about 200. Over 200 pvp is trash because everybody can do everything and that's when your build stops being a build.
Why I think invading is overall a good thing because it might encourage a player to try a different style, "and really a lot of pvers should because turtling and one handing is slow and not that effective." I never really considered learning the ways of the Ultra Great sword or duel wielding poison spotted whips, until some invader killed me with those weapons.
Hope some of this was helpful, I look forward to invading you sometime in DS3
Most covenants only need about 30 of something to unlock all their stuff, the brotherhood needs 500
A couple handy tips for all you achievement hunters who hate pvp out there:
You don't actually need to max out the brotherhood of blood (or most covenants). The only reason you would *need* to do this is to get their specific spell, but after completing the game twice (ascetics don't count) then the dude who greets you at Drangleic will sell you that spell.
For the bellkeepers, there's an npc red phantom and has a decent chance of showing up in the Belfry Sol if you are a member. Killing him counts towards your covenant progression and he doesn't permanently die.
Hopefully SotFS didn't make a liar out of me by changing these.
Comments
Rather juvenile really, but.....
Sen's fortress is actually one of my least favorite sections of the game. So many cat walks and drops. But thankfully it is relatively short.
Dark Souls 2 played i a bit, because DS 1 is not ready yet. (Big Ogre has new Trick to fell his Corpse to my char, i had "noticed" this trick, but i was surprised too, that this Ogre catched my corpse and munches as his "food". So was i on way to weak... and at this moment been calmed, but this game IS very fair. Not for "Storytelling-Pussies", this is for the Hardcore RPGers.
So yesterday i had beaten a Capras-Demon and i'm on way to the deep under the undead-town. I hate surprises!!!
As expected, with the summon, Iron Golem hardly even felt like a boss fight. Overall I come away from here with many resistance and specific use rings, an abundance of Titanite, and access to a vendor who can sell me upgrades for more at pretty much any time. Now it's on to Anor Londo, where I get the feeling things are about to amp up considerably.
Speaking of Dark Souls 2, I also created a character to explore the first part of the sequel. My first impressions are that it is everything you would expect a sequel to be. A much more fluid and intuitive UI, small changes that are nonetheless familiar, and a greater focus on story and location (but still bare bones compared to any other game). It's not as monolithic as Dark Souls, the graphics are more colorful and cartoonish. If Dark Souls is Led Zeppelin IV, then Dark Souls 2 feels like Physical Graffiti.
1.) Drangleic and Lordran could almost certainly be the same place, simply separated by aeons of time. Majula certainly feels like Firelink. I know there are alot of theories about this, and you could read almost anything into this game, but this one seems the most powerful for me.
2.) Forest of the Fallen Giants (to me at least) has provided an even greater challenge thus far than the Undead Burg as an opening area, though that may because I'm playing a primary magic user who doesn't yet have the stats to use a decent shield, and that Scholar of the First Sin apparently re-tuned the entire game.
3.) The fact that some enemies stop re-spawning after you kill them enough has me of two minds. As someone who is "abusing" (though I don't believe in abusing mechanics, if they are in the game and not a bug, they are valid) farming in Dark Souls right now, I'm slightly dismayed you can't do that in Dark Souls 2. On the other hand, it makes your path back a hell of a lot easier and quicker, and also forces you to not horde your souls, as you may not be able to build them back up again without taking on tougher enemies.
Overall, it's more than a worthy successor. What it changes (Estus Flasks and Life Gems especially, as well as new rules on stats) isn't as important as what it keeps the same. While I have very little doubt that Dark Souls is the greater game on a whole (for numerous reasons), I enjoy playing Dark Soul 2 even more than I do the first.
Edit: Scratch what I said about the changes....the fact that your max health bar goes down to 50% after enough deaths (like a curse in the first game) is absolute nonsense. Sure I can use effigies, but on a particularly tough boss, you may just run out. And with no more unlimited farming, even being able to buy them eventually becomes a problem. Furthermore, I JUST realized I played nearly the ENTIRE first area at half-health. And have been trying to take down the Pursuer this way....another rage-quit moment, worse than the Capra Demon....though I've made the mistake possibly of thinking I have to take him down now, when in fact the area he guards is significantly higher level than I should be going to next anyway. And yes, I know about the bastila trick, hasn't quite worked for me yet
So Scholar of the First Sin really takes your choices and your actions to a whole new level. For the cautious player, there is really no benefit to do anything but get one small area down pat, farm it safely until you get every last soul you can squeeze out of it til the enemies stop spawning, go spend them, and THEN move on. Apparently there is a Ring of Binding that limits your death penalty to a minimum of 80% health instead of 50%, which is good to know, but that's a damn near mandatory item for a good chunk of your game if you are the kind of player I am. Then again, I'm impressed I did as well as I did and one-shot The Last Giant while essentially being cursed, even if the Pursuer was too much for me in that state. Things are slightly better in Heide's Tower of Flame, but I'm essentially just farming these Sentinels until they disappear, then moving on from there. I can't understand how anyone would think Dark Souls 2 is easier than the first game in any way, but I have a very limited sample size.
Co-Op is great way of farming souls and restoring humanity.
This makes DS2 pretty easy, as coop is DS1 is pretty limited. Seldom get summoned, or see signs.
Also magic is the easiest way to beat DS2, especially with the lock on range buffed.
And the changes in Scholar of the First Sin feel obvious and tacked on, even for someone who has never played the original game. I'll bet alot that there was no Iron Turtle on the walkway with all the gunpowder in the first area, and I'd bet my life savings that there was no dragon guarding the drawbridge to the Cathedral in Heide's Tower of Flame.
Took down the Dragon by luring him to the edge of his platform and shooting him with Soul Arrows with the binoculars. I have no problem exploiting or "cheesing" anything in this game. Why would such items and combos be available if not to encourage being creative beyond the parrying, dodging, and strafing that seems to dominate 90% of the tutorials on these games?? While there are many notable exceptions, the vast majority of the enemies in this game seem most easily dealt with by running up to or hugging their left or right side, then doing a double-roll dodge while waiting for their 1-3 move attack combo to leave them open for a shot. Anyway, I picked up the Ring of Binding, which cuts your Hollow penalty down to 80% health, which is certainly more doable, though this seems like an almost mandatory piece of equipment (which might be why it is very easy to come by, all things considered).
I've continued with the strategy of farming until de-spawn, then moving further. Once my spells run out, I retreat to the bonfire. No-Man's Wharf is excellent, the tried and true lost pirate cove, Dark Souls-style. The areas in DS2 do feel more like individual scenarios moreso than DS1, but that's only because they don't constantly circle back on one another. Each area in the original game is just as unique, it's just that they don't change as drastically as quickly. And while both games allow you the freedom to do certain things right away, they are also designed (both of them) to eventually funnel you into one or two areas that are appropriate for your skill level, especially on a first play-through. Taking the Master Key as the gift in DS1 might literally be the worst thing you could do as a new player. Great for speed runs, but not for truly experiencing the game.
I'm torn....I'm farming Sentinels in DS1 to level up my Pyromancy before hitting the harder areas of Anor Londo, but I'm finding that DS2 has me just as enthralled. In all, I've probably put in 40-50 hours in both games, and what I can tell from really diving into both is that I'm certainly getting BETTER at playing Dark Souls (which is a skill that is unlike any other video-game you've ever played), though that still means I'm pretty terrible. I think I mostly get ahead by over-leveling, but farming and grinding are a time-honored RPG tradition that I'm more than happy to indulge in these games.
@jjstraka34 - don't get bogged down in the sequel until you finish the first one. It is well worth the effort.
Regarding pyromancy (in DS1), it is 'Free magic', sort of. The cost of increasing your pyromancy flame does get expensive after a while. And there is a practical upper limit that Sorcery can definitely surpass. My Sorcerer eventually got to the point where I was almost one-shotting Bosses, something that Pyromancy can not do. Crystal Soul spear (or homing crystal soul mass) along with a few magic items and a well built sorcerer will definitely out-class pyromancy in terms of damage potential (PvE, not necessarily PvP).
As for Dark Souls 3, who knows. It's very difficult to maintain innovation and quality more than two games when you are essentially using the exact same engine. Even longtime stalwarts like Zelda and Final Fantasy adhere to this, as they always change things up long before things get too stale. And you have Bloodborne, which I obviously haven't played not owning a console, but it certainly seems to be much faster-paced and focused on aggression and action, which is really the exact opposite of the deliberate pace and cautiousness of Dark Souls. Love the Lovecraftian element (though they almost seem to go overboard with it) but I'm certainly not spending $400 dollars just to be able to play the game, and it's never coming to the PC. Dark Souls 3 inevitably is going to have Bloodborne seeping into it a bit. And watching the videos of the first area, it doesn't seem bad, but stale, much like Fallout 4 in a way. It has nothing to do with it not being a good, competent title that can be easily enjoyed. It's about going to the well too many times. Another Dragon flying down on a perch and engulfing the area you need to pass in flames. I haven't even finished either game, and I've already seen this twice. Icewind Dale II suffered from this, Might and Magic VIII suffered from it. A third Zelda game on the 64 after Majora's Mask would have suffered from it as well. If you throw in Demon Soul's (another game I unfortunately cannot play without a console) Dark Souls 3 is going to the 5th game that is essentially running on the exact same engine.
On a more positive note....I heard a great tidbit about Hidetaka Miyazaki that really explains in a quite beautiful way why the lore in Dark Souls is so vague and unknowable. He was apparently a huge fan of Western fantasy literature, but he had very limited ability to read English. So he would attempt to read the books, but only came away with small moments, ideas, and snippets about what the story was actually about, so he was unable to tie the story together even though he was very interested in the material. Amazing, but makes sense....
This build is really quite weird, because normally I'm one of those people who just loves to lvl up to the highest possible point. My dude is sitting at around about lvl 170 something and I don't feel the need to add anything more to him and truthfully his build was done 10 lvls ago. All my previous toons got around about to be between 200 and 250ish before I stopped playing them. Now when I end up with a bunch of souls it's like 'welp time to buy more gold pine resin and repair powder, I guess'.
Anyway the actual build, well the important bits anyway,
50 VIG, because health is good.
50 DEX and 40 STR, for getting the most out of my weapons.
33 ADP, cause I have like 1 ATT so I needed to really pump this stat to get the 105 agility, "Oh random tip having 105 agility is really important, agility speeds up certain actions like chugging your estus flash or crushing a life gem and 105 is the only reasonable number to get too, the next one that actually does something is 116 and that would take 96 ADP to get, so yeah 105 agility is just fine"
For weapons I have the Drakewing Ultra Greatsword as my main, then the warped blade on my off hand for quick finishers against wounded opponents and for parrys. Oh and the hunter's black bow, for dealing with mage and wounded people running away in pvp.
For rings I use the third dragon ring, flynns ring, the bracing knuckle ring +2 and the stone ring. I havn't gone to pick up the ring of blades +2 yet, but when I do, I'll probably trade either flynns or stone ring out for it.
And there you have it, my random wall of text about how I spent the last few days XD
OH Oh oh , with this build I killed Raime on my third try, last time it took a full afternoon to beat him and I was better at the game then, this build just destroys pve, he died in like 8 hits or something.
Bloodbourne is the same engine "More or less", but the game play has a very different feel (at least to me). The video above just looks significantly more 'Bloodbourne' than it does Dark Souls. After putting in more than 400 hours on Dark Souls and maybe another 350 into Dark Souls 2 but not being able to get beyond 4-5 hours of Bloodbourne, I will be significantly disappointed if Dark Souls 3 is Bloodbourne but with a Dark Souls slap of paint on top. But that's just me.
I highly doubt the Bloodborne influence will be anything more than graphical. If Dark Souls 3 has roughly the same system requirements as Scholar of the First Sin, I'll pick it up (Dark Souls 2, Witcher 2 and Skyrim are about where my laptop peaks). If not, I'll stick with what I have.
If it means anything, I think you will find that in Dark Souls 2, there is a much higher emphasis on dancing around and avoiding damage than shield and defense style. Bloodbourne actually takes that a bit further still, but along the same lines.
My sense is that the game play has evolved from Demon Souls to Dark Souls 1 to Dark Souls 2 to Bloodbourne. And that Dark Souls 3 will be a continuation along that line of development. I hope I am wrong, but if I am not I will have a decision to make when Dark Souls 3 comes out as to if I am going to continue the series.
So, all 3 games could have some similarities with darker tone.
From the lore perspective this will be age of the ash. So, ashen textures and gloomy lighting could dominate. I wouldn't expect Majula's sunny day in it.
The gameplay seems as modified Bloodborne template. We'll see more how will that change in beta.
For instance, in Dark Souls, walking into the Undead Parish room with 3 Baldur Knights was a huge mistake, they kicked my ass and really got my blood pumping even when I went back and took a couple tries to get them. Having gone through more playthroughs now, and beaten the other games as well, that room is almost boring.
I can see that the changes from Dark Souls to Bloodborne seem excessive for players who like knowing how and when things will react, or players who haven't been trained up by the other games. That said, the souls games have a reputation for being hard, and veteran players will dance around challenges if nothing is changed to keep pace with them. You can see this in some of the response to DS2.
Dark Souls was enough of a difficulty step up from Demons Souls, but Dark Souls 2 was not noticeably more difficult than Dark Souls so it never got me wary about entering a room. Bloodborne had me wary almost all the time because the enemies are just so vicious.
It's unfortunate that so many of the mechanics in Dark Souls were dropped or marginalized in Bloodborne, but I can't see a good way that the difficulty could have been raised without doing that. Gwyn can almost be ignored if you have a good shield, so we lost shields. Titanite demons can be calmly sidestepped to death because their attacks are so slow, big things attack fast now. Only the dart spitters stand a chance against you if you have any kind of range, so spells and projectiles are less useful. The Gaping dragon just kind of wanders around its arena until it dies, hardly reacting to where you are, so now arenas are much smaller and bosses are much faster.
Overall, the changes really helped rekindle my enjoyment in From Software's games. So I guess my vote is, don't discount the changes out of hand, ignore it for now sure, but maybe come back when you find that you've memorized the capabilities and responses of every enemy in DS1 and DS2 and you're getting bored of them. Then you might find Bloodborne (and maybe DS3 if it really swings that way) a bit more appealing.
As for examples like the Titanite Demon being slow and good shield being able to absorb anything, well....yeah....I'm farming the Sentinels in Anor Londo right now when I'm playing Dark Souls. They are massive metal statues, it would be absurd if they were as agile as more lithe creatures. And a great shield should absorb most anything, especially if it's upgraded. It speaks to a mindset. I've noticed alot of comments on Souls videos whose advice is always "parry". Learn to parry the Black Knight, you can parry Gwyn, parry the Pursuer. I don't doubt it's the easiest way if you've mastered it, but there is alot more to the game and what can be used to defeat enemies than a nifty timing trick.
Even my first time encountering the Church full of Balder Knights, I don't think I have EVER not taken them on one at a time, because the game discourages doing so. I have killed them a hundred times between the 3, and I don't lament the challenge not being there, I view them as souls to acquire to help take down a challenge I haven't mastered yet. That's been the essence of Dark Souls for me. Mastering areas and using the items and the time spent there to earn better stats and upgrades to help me climb the next mountain. The challenge is always going to be there in Dark Souls, unless you spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours playing. There is NG+ up the wazoo. There is a ring in Dark Souls 2 that serves no purpose other than to double enemy health. People do Gwyn runs at Soul Level 1. I'm glad Dark Souls is challenging, but I'm also glad it's far from impossible. Bloodborne (and again, I can only go by what I see in videos) seems to be appealing to the type of Souls player who ascribes to the "learn to parry or get the f' out" frame of mind. And yeah, you can stun and backstab your way through the entire game if you want. Hell, even if you don't parry you can double roll and strafe through most of it anyway. None of the areas are hard once you memorize them. The bosses are a different story. I NEVER want to fight the Capra Demon again, on any character. People struggle with different things in these games.
All that aside, I'd actually love to play Bloodborne, but much like Demon's Souls, it is a Sony exclusive and we'll never see either on PC. And while I'm sure they're awesome, they aren't worth a $500-600 investment to get both systems and the games.
it may look like Bloodborne will never come to the PC. Don't be sure about that. I don't know about any plans currently, but never discount the power of companies wanting to maximize their investment or the effects of thousands of fans clambering for something to make it happen. I never thought that they would make a Baldur's Gate EE game.
I myself defeated Quelaag several times not through parrying, but merely by running away and killing her from range with a bow. Like you, I studied her weaknesses and strategies and figured out what was best/easiest for my play style and I took her down. Then I took in a warrior who only had a BIG sword and had to find a different way. I turtled up with as much fire resistance as I could find and hit and run. When I took my sorcerer in, I blasted the witch several times with soul spear and that was all she wrote. So there are absolutely different strategies to win the day.
The Balder knights in the Undead Parish were initially tough for me as well. After getting spa---d by them gang jumping me the first time, I was terrified of them. I eventually found out how to take them on one at a time. Later, I figured out how to take them on en-mass. Later still in the game, I would jump them just because. Back-stab one, killing him outright then line up the other two between the rows of pews in the church and knock em down. Observation and strategy.
The Capra demon was also initially scary as crap for me. Now I don't fear him. And considering that you can face as many as 4 at a time later in the game, you won't either. He is intended to be really scary at first. Mission successful. But don't make him tougher than he actually is merely because you didn't have the strategy/skill that you will get (and you will get there unless you give up).
I don't see Bloodbourne as any different. Nor do I see it as only playable by someone who has "Beat the F--- out of Dark Souls", nor is it 100% frenzied zerg rush monsters such that you can't explore and plan and tactically take out opponents. Yes, even as little as I got into the game, there are some skills that present themselves to learn. But then that was the way I was at the beginning of Dark Souls as well.
Finally, don't think that all 'Console gamers' are all about Halo and Gears of War of mad rush and big damage explosions. As a long time console gamer (and PC gamer), I've played all of the tomb raider games where you needed to figure out how to solve a puzzle or end a monster. I've played several survival horror games where the name of the game is tactical strategy and resource management and if you don't take it one step at a time you are dead. Consoles have come a LONG way and there are a lot of different flavors of games out there. Don't make the mistake of pigeon holing console gamers as not being careful and cautious players.
Just about every walk-through of Dark Souls that I found online offered the 'rush to point x' strategy. that didn't work for me so I found the cautious, methodically take everything down in order, strategy. You CAN do it. And particularly in the catacombs on the way to Tomb of the Giants. Good luck and have fun with it.
All in all a very average game, I wouldn't recommend this game unless it was at least 75% off.
It's funny but a lot of your review actually encourages me. I've found just in the first few hours of the game that (and I am playing a warrior type in heavy armor) I could get behind opponents actually easier than I could in DS. Of course these are early enemies so I might be jumping the gun a bit but I can wear heavy armor and still get back stabs in.
I am quite happy with the "No multiplayer". I think that was a huge problem (for my personal and subjective game play style) that Dark Souls was so heavily focused on multi-player. I hated when people invaded my game unbidden and with no other intent but to screw with weaker players. I figured out how you could get around that particular aspect, but it still bothered me. I actually participated online with a group of Dark Souls players and found that 95% of them were, well not very nice people. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but not much of one. I had a bunch of players tell me "If you don't like being invaded, don't play online." What jerks.... But I digress.
I faced off against the shield boss last night. Maybe it is because I have played so many hours at Dark Souls, but he actually wasn't that much of a challenge. Well, that is to say that he killed me on my first try, but I almost had him before he did and I now know what to expect so I think I'll do fine my second pass. I do find the game significantly easier than Dark Souls on the whole, at least early on. But that is actually not a bad thing.
As for the length, I'd read that prior to purchasing so I went in expecting it. It is a relief that I am not looking at another 300 hour long game. And considering that the game was almost free (I got it on sale and with points that dropped the price even further), I expect to get what I paid for. We will see what my impressions are after I finish.
It is clear that the game is far inferior to Dark Souls right from the get-go. Your customization is fairly limited and it is easier than that game. Plus the short length and I didn't expect to be blown away. But I do find myself in need of something that isn't Dark Souls, yet is similar enough that I enjoy it. I consider it like a Dark Souls Smokers patch to ween off the addiction.
A lot of bloodbros just want to fight and that's fine, that's what dark souls is for. In any pvp area you will always see tonnes of red summon signs on the floor, take Old Iron keep bridge for example, there will pretty much always be red summon signs on that bridge, sometimes more red signs than dragon eyes, too my shame.
Anyway the only way I can see for a red phantom to ruin your game is to invade once you have already died once and on a soul retrieval run, that is annoying but soul farming really isn't a problem as long as the Giant King exists. If you have a bunch of souls and are scared of losing them, Just put on a Ring of Life Protection or Ring of Soul Protection and then you retain your souls on death.
Another thing you can do is join "the way of the blue" is the covenant the crestfallen warrior wants you to join in Majula. When you are invaded, the invader gets invaded by a blue sentinel "If one is online at the time."
Ways to deal with invaders if you are a full on pve turtle."not saying you are, but a lot of pve players do just turtle up." First off if you don't care about honorable duels, you can chug estus and red phantoms can't they can only use the warmth spell or healing miracles, warmth spell helps you both and healing miracles have a fairly long casting time and if you stick on them they won't be able to cast them, so just trade damage and then heal. Poison them. Pick up one of the few extremely over powered noob weapons and then just win by mashing R1/RB or whatever it is on a keyboard. The weapons I'm talking about are Chaos blade, Ice rapier, Red Rust Twinblade and Warped sword"to a lesser extent. Most of the invaders you fight will be average players, it is a very rare thing to fight a invader who actually has the patience to set a trap or a pvp god who's reverse backstepping, animation cancelling and all that other good stuff.
Also most pvp guys don't level passed 150. Level 150 is where a build is considered complete, so for the best pvp experience most players stay 150 and some go up to about 200. Over 200 pvp is trash because everybody can do everything and that's when your build stops being a build.
Why I think invading is overall a good thing because it might encourage a player to try a different style, "and really a lot of pvers should because turtling and one handing is slow and not that effective." I never really considered learning the ways of the Ultra Great sword or duel wielding poison spotted whips, until some invader killed me with those weapons.
Hope some of this was helpful, I look forward to invading you sometime in DS3
You don't actually need to max out the brotherhood of blood (or most covenants). The only reason you would *need* to do this is to get their specific spell, but after completing the game twice (ascetics don't count) then the dude who greets you at Drangleic will sell you that spell.
For the bellkeepers, there's an npc red phantom and has a decent chance of showing up in the Belfry Sol if you are a member. Killing him counts towards your covenant progression and he doesn't permanently die.
Hopefully SotFS didn't make a liar out of me by changing these.