A year ago I went through ds 2 Scholar and I liked it more than not, and there were interesting features like Reloading a campfire to get ng + or for example imposing a buff on almost many different types of weapons. Initially, I listened to the opinion that the game is bad and should not be played, but after passing the game, the game showed a lot of interesting things, even ds 3 now seems to be a very simple game, where there is nothing but battles.
Is the second part good now?
I only speak PVE.

There is even a large group of people in Russia who have long considered the second part to be the best in the series :)
.............................................................
Maybe someone knows if Tanimura has a biography? On the Internet, it is only written about what projects he participated in and what he did during the development of ds2.

DS2 isn’t a bad game, it’s just objectively the worst in the series. It had some cool bosses and the DLC were some of the best.

But it def had its flaws, and it didn’t try to hide them.

Originally posted by 777:

A year ago I went through ds 2 Scholar and I liked it more than not, and there were interesting features like Reloading a campfire to get ng + or for example imposing a buff on almost many different types of weapons. Initially, I listened to the opinion that the game is bad and should not be played, but after passing the game, the game showed a lot of interesting things, even ds 3 now seems to be a very simple game, where there is nothing but battles.
Is the second part good now?

There is even a large group of people in Russia who have long considered the second part to be the best in the series :)

DS2 was best game in series, huge jump ahead in game mechanic, also it have invasion system which allow you to spend thousand hours in game.

If you liked it then what does it matter? The community has no say as to whether or not you get to personally like or dislike a game, or play said game.

Originally posted by Sabaithal:

If you liked it then what does it matter? The community has no say as to whether or not you get to personally like or dislike a game, or play said game.

This is more a question of whether Miyazaki has degraded in new games? I liked Elden ring more, but I saw a lot of problems in the game. And if we talk about DS 3, then it immediately becomes clear that Miyazaki does not want to complicate the system, but rather simplifies everything, even there are very few forks in DS 3, there is more of a linear system of locations. Tanimura brought a lot of different gameplay elements to DS 2, I was surprised that there are new ideas there.

The whole bonfire ascetic mechanic was a really cool idea and made farming stuff really easy.
But overall it just does too many things wrong which is why many consider it to be the worst of them all. Not a bad game in general but the worst Souls game. It was bascially Gank Souls where quantity equals hard.

No just a good game that made every problem/flaw with every other souls game 1000x worse to make a game that could easily be as good as the others with a few simple changes

Compared to other games? No.

Compared to other Souls games? It's easily the weakest entry.

It's not a bad game. It feels awkward and out of place as a Souls title.

In much the same way that Final Fantasy: Spirits Within probably would've reviewed better had it not been yoked with the FF pedigree, SotFS was a perfectly serviceable Souls-like, but just didn't feel right as part of the Souls direct-line.

I blame soul memory. Garbage mechanic in an otherwise solid experience.

Originally posted by An Irate Walrus:

It's not a bad game. It feels awkward and out of place as a Souls title.

In much the same way that Final Fantasy: Spirits Within probably would've reviewed better had it not been yoked with the FF pedigree, SotFS was a perfectly serviceable Souls-like, but just didn't feel right as part of the Souls direct-line.

I blame soul memory. Garbage mechanic in an otherwise solid experience.

Starting from ng+, you can already choose the path for research in Majula, and we also have new enemies on ng+ (which again gives an incentive to switch to ng+, and this is despite the fact that you can get almost all items on ng 0) . I think it was interesting.

It's a great soulslike.

It's an entry into the Souls series - the lore is clearly connected, and DS3 acknowledges it, but it has a different visual style.

It had a lot of trouble during development and that still shows ofc, for example in the nonsensical ways some of the world is connected. Tanimura saved the project, even though he usually gets blamed for its issues (which is dumb).

It generally gets more flak than it deserves.

Dork Souls 1 comunity just don't like adaptability , so they tend to spite at 2nd game.

Originally posted by 777:

A year ago I went through ds 2 Scholar and I liked it more than not, and there were interesting features like Reloading a campfire to get ng + or for example imposing a buff on almost many different types of weapons. Initially, I listened to the opinion that the game is bad and should not be played, but after passing the game, the game showed a lot of interesting things, even ds 3 now seems to be a very simple game, where there is nothing but battles.
Is the second part good now?

There is even a large group of people in Russia who have long considered the second part to be the best in the series :)

I played all dark souls games as soon as they were out on PC. I like dark souls 1 for its poise and armor. Dark Souls 2 for its replayability, variety of viable playstyles, fun weapons and items. Bone fist PVP was awesome. The DLCs are big and great. Dark souls 3 probably has the best level design out of all series so far.
dark souls 2 haters are vocal minority. every dark souls game does both something better and something worse than other games. Objectively worse? (says literally who?). Dark Souls 2 is one of the highest scored dark souls games (although they are all scored almost equally high), and sold in more copies than other games (except elden ring)

And let's be honest, you will play all of them anyway when you want more dark souls.

Originally posted by CourtesyFlush90:

Compared to other games? No.

Compared to other Souls games? It's easily the weakest entry.

10/10 absolutely nailed it.

People that praise it here tend to constantly dodge around the massive graphical and lightning downgrade and the fiasco with how it was handled by the company and start to come apart at the seams if you talk about hitboxes or enemy design or how devastatingly overtuned weapon damage types where etc.

Absolute mess of a game compared to any other entry in the series.

Originally posted by Argonaut:

Originally posted by CourtesyFlush90:

Compared to other games? No.

Compared to other Souls games? It's easily the weakest entry.

10/10 absolutely nailed it.

People that praise it here tend to constantly dodge around the massive graphical and lightning downgrade and the fiasco with how it was handled by the company and start to come apart at the seams if you talk about hitboxes or enemy design or how devastatingly overtuned weapon damage types where etc.

Absolute mess of a game compared to any other entry in the series.

STR/strike was horrifically OP.

But it was awfully damned fun to run the whole thing with a caestus. Had I been aware of OPM back when 2 launched, I'd have been the Caped Baldy.

Such as it was, my next door neighbors got used to hearing "fawl-cohn...PAWNCH!" fairly frequently.

It was a great game