{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/18/2016 4:40:27 PM
1
DS2 seemed almost like they were trying to improve the game, which wasn't necessary. The animations were awkward and they focused far too much on graphics than story a logical use of items that already existed.
The sequel also almost seems like the story from the first is nearly irrelevant, which definitely shouldn't be the case. Basically to me, it felt like I was playing a different series that tried really hard to be dark souls and the only reason they got the name, was because the same company made it.
English
-
There's always room for improvement in any franchise, if they had made Dark Souls 2 with the same graphics, same mechanics, same animations, then people would complain about it. They would say that Dark Souls 2 added nothing new to the series and it would look more like a cash grab on the success of the previous game (Battlefield Hardline anyone?). I honestly don't see how they could have continued the story from the first game, I like that 1 and 2 have their own stories. It makes it easier for newcomers to the series and there are still a few nods in there for the veterans. The story may not have been as memorable as the first, but its good DS2 had its own self-contained story. Plus it fits with Knight Solaire's speech about all the different worlds interacting with each other. A different world, a different time.
