Claymorelinx wrote:Imma just say that Dark Souls 2 is trash, the people on here arguing that it's better aren't arguing in good faith.
That's, like, your opinion, man.
Not even sure what to say to this one, I made a claim that can be proven/disproven and you incorrectly labeled it as an opinion...
Claymorelinx wrote:First of soul memory is being swept under the nostalgic rug, when it was a quintessential part of why invasions sucked in that game.
Nobody here is defending Soul Memory, aside from the fact that it did finally prevent twinks. DS3 has a better system for that purpose.
Thank you for proving that you are being intellectually dishonest, I only went back one page and found soul memory apologetics.
Claymorelinx wrote: Not only was it easier ever to summon a gank squad (of which I ran into many)
Um, you can have like 6 people as a host in DS3. You were capped at 4 in DS2. Also, it isn't hard to summon 2-3 people in a popular PVP area. You can gank in every game.
Use your brain to contextualize please. I said that it was easier than ever [before (should be implied)]. Meaning I am not holding it up to the 6 people of Dark Souls 3...
Claymorelinx wrote: but the invader had a limited use of red eye orbs meaning that if the invader wanted to stay in a certain pvp teir, he'd have to wear the agape ring (which wasn't around for a long *** time).
Yes, and the host has a limited number of Human Effigies. If you wanted to repeatedly screw with people in DS2, you had to either win, or go farm Cracked Red Eye Orbs.
How is this not a bad thing? The players should be able to "repeatedly screw with people" if that's what they want to do. It's available in every other game.
Claymorelinx wrote: Secondly, for duels phantom range was worse than ever, armor bonuses were worse than ever, weapons were replaced by others that had the same moveset but simply did more damage.
I can't tell what game you are describing here. Phantom range has been in ALL of the souls games, but DS3 just errs on the side of a miss, rather than a hit, leading to wonky animations when you think you hit, but you actually didn't.
Your weapon critique applies most accurately to DS3. Most weapons in DS2 filled a niche. In DS3, there is usually a "best" weapon in every class that gets used, and everything else is ignored, until a patch nerfs the "best" weapon.
Umm, let's use some numbers to prove you wrong. In DkS 3 the most physical damage reduction you can have is 148. In Dark Souls 2 though the system works differently, Havel's set give you over 1000 physical defense, making some of these "viable" weapons you rail about useless (looking at you partizan, twinblade, etc.)
As far as phantom range goes, it is better by your own omission to have hits that looked like they hit miss instead of the other way around. Similar to the adage that "I'd rather have 100 criminals go free than convict one innocent man".
Claymorelinx wrote: Sure anything can be viable in any game (I got invaded in DeS by a dual-wielding spiked shield guy), so let's not use viability it's a moot point in all three games. BB had significantly less viability than the others (arcane=useless, bloodtinge=useless).
Except in DS2, there were dozens of weapons that were "best" depending on build, infusion, and playstyle. There wasn't a weapon like the Carthus Curved Sword, Dark Sword, or Estoc where it was the best weapon all around.
There was also a ton more build variety in DS2. If you don't play Quality in DS3, you are at a noticeable disadvantage. In DS2, you could run into just about anything.
This is just false. You are confusing balance with viability, and even still the dozens of weapons in DkS2 were the best weapons in their class, like you said earlier about dark souls 3, but was horribly mistaken. Mastodon G.Sword > Bastard Sword, period, it's just a better weapon making the BS obsolete...
Claymorelinx wrote: Not only that but DkS2 had as was previously stated a different "flow" than the other games, and due to this it's buggy, sluggish, and pretty much irredeemable, especially since the game didn't even try to use realistic animations.
This is purely preference. I personally like the feel of DS2. It isn't "buggy", your actions just carry more weight and are more meaningful than DS1 and DS3. In DS3, it is nothing to spam rolls to escape a combo, because rolling is cheap and makes you practically invincible. In DS2, if you spam rolls, you WILL get hit by someone who knows what their doing.
You can like it all you want, but the moves that your character makes aren't at all realistic to how these weapons were actually (or would be actually) used in combat.
Claymorelinx wrote: **** DARK SOULS 2, it's the worst souls game, or at least there are more objective facts that the game is weaker than the other games.
No, it isn't objective, it is entirely subjective.
I won't say DS2 was perfect, it had it's flaws, it's just nowhere near as bad as people like to carry on about.
There now I at least have some facts down, interested at what you have to say.
P.S. To the troll that voted me down and got my comment hidden, piss off I didn't go around hiding your comments.