Nooooo that's ages away!!!

I'm just playing through Scholar of the first Sin having never done the DLC before. I'm nearing (ish) the main quest, just made it to the Dragon Shrine. Was wondering what peoples opinion was on when to tackle the DLC areas, I got into the Sunken King area but found myself a touch unserpowered.

It's out! Been looking forward to this one.

RobC wrote:I'm just playing through Scholar of the first Sin having never done the DLC before. I'm nearing (ish) the main quest, just made it to the Dragon Shrine. Was wondering what peoples opinion was on when to tackle the DLC areas, I got into the Sunken King area but found myself a touch unserpowered.

I've only gone for the DLC areas when I had beaten the game or was at the point where I could beat the game, and I'm pretty sure they're designed around a player that strong. I also think they're intended to be tackled in release order, because I killed the Maiden in Green right after beating Nashandra and had to do the DLC without levelling up, and Brume Tower and Eleum Loyce were definitely tougher for it. I also think the enemies in Shulva specifically have a lot of poise, so they may be tanking through your blows. Try out different weapons, too.

I don't have an install of Windows that can run Scholar, but I do have thoughts about the DLC that I'll get to posting soon. In short: they're very well-designed, but their good design ultimately ends up highlighting more of the issues at Dark Souls 2's core and feeds a little into the disappointment of the game.

If Scholar actually does what I would have liked with the Pursuer, I may be more into the game; aside from the Pursuer barely pursuing you, I also think it shouldn't have been an actual boss fight. Fighting the Pursuer out in the open before you fight the Last Giant, in a big arena, with no music and no interruptions, was one of the most exciting and tense experiences I had while playing the game.

Yeah, DLCs can be left for almost last thing before ticking over into NG+. They are all tough, and Roy is spot on about the poise of the initial enemies in Shulva (Sunken King DLC). You want to be able to dodge their attacks or be outputting so much damage that you can finish them off before they wind up a swing to hit you. In fact, I think the basic enemies in all 3 DLC areas might be high poise enemies (from memory). I've tackled the Sunken King DLC with a fully upgraded Lightning Claymore and struggled to stagger the enemies; a +10 Red-Iron Twinblade will stagger them on the second flurry of hits IIRC.

Shulva's enemies are higher poise than Brume or Eleum Loyce; I have a swordsman with the stone ring, and I can stagger the latter two, but I feel like they still powered through my hits in Shulva.

Thanks! It's good to know I'm supposed to be being beaten down a bit

Roy42 wrote:Shulva's enemies are higher poise than Brume or Eleum Loyce; I have a swordsman with the stone ring, and I can stagger the latter two, but I feel like they still powered through my hits in Shulva.

Ah, to be fair I had the Stone Ring on the Red-Iron Twinblade, so not staggering an enemy in a single flurry was unusual.

I just started dark souls 2 on the PS4 (well I've played like 5 or 6 hours now) and... hmm. I'm not sure yet. I like it, not as much as bloodborne though. I dunno, I'm finding it quite difficult to articulate my opinion on it.

I had a lot more difficulty in working out where I needed to go next in Dark Souls 2 compared to the first game. The game also felt a lot more piecemeal, consisting as it did of relatively unconnected areas. It never felt like one cohesive open world in the same way Dark Souls did.

Alex79uk wrote:
I had a lot more difficulty in working out where I needed to go next in Dark Souls 2 compared to the first game. The game also felt a lot more piecemeal, consisting as it did of relatively unconnected areas. It never felt like one cohesive open world in the same way Dark Souls did.

Apparently the disconnected feel to the world was an intentional aspect; the idea was that the player character was losing track of where things were in relation to one-another, a kind of spacial amnesia (and an effect of the curse). I'm not saying I buy this, or that (if it is true) it worked as intended, but that's the theory. In fact, I think the reported job that Yui Tanimura had to do in rescuing Dark Souls 2 from the abyss (pun intended) may be more pertinent in explaining why the game feels like a patchwork quilt of disparate areas.

I hope the upcoming Dark Souls II Design Works book will shine some light on the development in the same way that the previous Design Works did for Dark Souls.

Ah that's interesting, I wonder if it's true! An aside, but I've only just remembered the DVD I got with my copy of Dark Souls 1. Not sure exactly what's on it, but I never got around to watching it, I'll have to give it a look.

I completed Bloodborne at the weekend (thanks to the patient advice of our very own James Carter) and, despite having a huge backlog of games to play, I feel like I want to play more things like Bloodborne.

I have my pre-order in for Dark Souls 3, but should I pick up Dark Souls 2 in the meantime? I hear mixed things about its quality, and some of the design decisions (enemies stop respawning after a certain number of tries, or so I've heard) make me think this might not be for me.

What do you reckon, people? Should I go for it? It's only £19 on Xbox One at the moment.

It's not as good as 1, but it's still better than 90% of games out there. I enjoyed it tremendously.

Xbox One version is the Scholar Of The First Sin edition, and that's definitely the way to go if you do decide to play it. It's a much improved version of the game, thanks to the hard work of Yui Tanimura (the game's director). He has been consulting on DS3 to ensure that the series works as a trilogy. That said, the links between 1 and 2 are mostly thematic, with only a handful of (ancillary) direct ties.

Whilst I'd always advocate playing the games in order if possible, it's a tough call. I'd also advocate playing Dark Souls 3 at launch so you can be part of working things out with everyone else. Sorry, that's not much help, as advice goes.

Whatever you decide, feel free to ask here, or by email, if you want any advice.

I went for it. Really enjoying DS2 so far. Interesting to readjust to the combat after so much Bloodborne, but I am liking the much more varied selections of weapons and armours and upgrades, etc.

Is it just me though or is it a little more generous with the level up requirements? I'm only 7 hours in, 2 bosses down (Last Giant and Pursuer) and I'm already at level 40. And that's without consuming boss souls.

Yeah, you'll be a much higher level by endgame than in Dark Souls, or even Bloodborne (sans Chalices and DLC). That does give a wider scope for hybrid builds though, which is good.

Look forward to seeing how you get on.

Lords of the Fallen is going to be free next month on Xbox live, anyone else interested in playing? For those who don't know it's meant to be a very rspectable clone/homage to dark souls. I've nearly bought this game on numerous occasions so am very happy, and it will be a nice warm up to the main event in April.

It's definitely a Souls-like, but I didn't get on with it, sadly. I made it through about two-thirds of the game but ran out of steam. There were several aspects of the game that put me off, but most of all the combat felt much more haphazard than I'd've liked; some enemies in particular were a chore to fight due to their attack patterns and relentless turtling.

That said, I think it's a great choice for Games With Gold. It's a game that I suspect quite a few people, like yourself, are interested in trying but haven't yet found the time/impetus to do so. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I'm glad Lords of the Fallen exists, just to highlight that Dark Souls 2 is still a very accomplished game, despite a few flaws.