I recently learned that Dark Souls 2 holds the highest Metacritic score among all the games in the series at 91%. However, it seems like many gamers view it as the least favorable installment. I’ve noticed that discussions on gaming websites and forums often portray it as the weaker sibling in the franchise. I’m not looking to debate whether the game is actually good or bad. My question is why there’s such inconsistency between the praise from critics and the negative perception from players. How can a well-reviewed game have such a poor reputation in the community?
Different directors too. Miyazaki didn’t direct DS2 and you could tell the design philosophy was completely different.
Launch Metacritic scores don’t show how games age or fit into their series. DS2 was decent standalone but felt wrong for a Souls game. The floaty movement, constant ganking, and bizarre world design became more obvious as people replayed it next to the other games.
Makes sense that critics and players disagree here. Critics rush through games at launch while players can dig deep and compare everything. Dark Souls 2 had weird design choices that only became obvious later, like the adaptability stat and wonky level design. Scholar edition fixed some stuff, but the damage was already done with fans.
Critics looked at it on its own when it came out. Players got to really play it and compare it to other titles in the series. Plus, the first game had problems that got sorted out in Scholar of the First Sin.
Launch version had janky hitboxes and that soul memory matchmaking system really ticked off the longtime fans. Scholar fixed most of it, but you know how first impressions go - they stick.