Poll of the Day > So... Darkest dungeon 2 is a pretty massive letdown huh?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gutted everything that made the first game awesome so they could make a worse version of slay the spire.

Consequences are not lasting. I am invested 0%in any of my heroes because if they fail then it's just "oh well, let's bring in a new party with the exact same characters"

It's not even hard, it's just boring. One of your dudes lands on death's door and you'd be flipping out if it was darkest dungeon 1. In dd2 someone hits deaths door and it's just kinda like "meh. Maybe I start over, maybe she lives, no biggie either way"

Red hook done fucked up.

I've never even played Darkest Dungeon 1 :0

---

papercup posted...

I've never even played Darkest Dungeon 1 :0

You might enjoy this one then.
It's a decent enough game if you dont consider it a successor to the original. In that context it's great. In this context it fails it pretty much every metric possible.

Notschmendrake posted...

It's a decent enough game if you dont consider it a successor to the original. In that context it's great

I think that's what they were going for, im pretty sure they said somewhere that this isn't supposed to replace DD 1 and im all for radical new directions in sequels, the "shorter" run based approach this has taken is personally not a turn off for me

---

It didnt need to "replace" dd1, but it did need to improve on it. Failing to do so means it's a bad sequel. It did fail, and it's not like they did anything new or innovative. Slay the spire already exists, and this is little more than a reskin.

It's not a bad game, just a massive letdown for what it could have been. For sure gonna be a hard pass for me. Glad I tried before I buyed

TheSlinja posted...

I think that's what they were going for, im pretty sure they said somewhere that this isn't supposed to replace DD 1 and im all for radical new directions in sequels, the "shorter" run based approach this has taken is personally not a turn off for me

If that's the case naming it DD "2" may not have been the right approach, a number implies a sequel similar to the first as shown time and time again when sequels fail complaints are always "it's nothing like the first".

Using a subtitle probably would have helped them market the game better. Also I didn't even know there was gonna be a sequel untill I got a youtube ad last week so maybe marketing sucks.

Cruddy_horse posted...

If that's the case naming it DD "2" may not have been the right approach, a number implies a sequel similar to the first as shown time and time again when sequels fail complaints are always "it's nothing like the first".

Using a subtitle probably would have helped them market the game better. Also I didn't even know there was gonna be a sequel untill I got a youtube ad last week so maybe marketing sucks.

They could have called it Slayest Spire or Dark the Dungeon and it would have been much less disappointing

I find it acceptable when a sequel makes things weird... I mean, look at Legend of Bumbo

---

Lokarin posted...

I find it acceptable when a sequel makes things weird... I mean, look at Legend of Bumbo

It's not weird though. It's just a different game that already exists.

I'm just going to spend this topic coming up with better names for darkest dungeon 2.

I think I like
Darkest Dungeon: Ground Mission Dark Aqua Zero

Darkest Dungeon: Mobile

It does feel way more conducive to microtransactions, which doesnt feel great to say.

It's... different. Not in a good way.

---

The_tall_midget posted...

It's... different. Not in a good way.

It's not a bad game, it's just bad when considered as a sequel.

I was hoping for a better sanity system, like a dude nearly dying in the Warrens and being afraid of them, not randomly the Cove. But I'm hearing the team is basically bickering children arguing about kill stealing and falling in love at first sight.

---

Rotpar posted...

I was hoping for a better sanity system, like a dude nearly dying in the Warrens and being afraid of them, not randomly the Cove. But I'm hearing the team is basically bickering children arguing about kill stealing and falling in love at first sight.

Accurate

I didn't even like darkest dungeon 1

Not my kind of difficult. I get that from a narrative standpoint it's supposed to be frustrating and unforgiving and and and, but that's just not my bag baby

ReggieTheReckless posted...

I didn't even like darkest dungeon 1

Not my kind of difficult. I get that from a narrative standpoint it's supposed to be frustrating and unforgiving and and and, but that's just not my bag baby

You might have a much better time with DD 2 then. All the depth of the original is gone, and the difficulty took a sharp nosedive along with it. It's not stressful or unforgiving anymore. It's just generic.

I like difficulty, I just like difficulty in progressing through something that makes me try it 100 times before I can do it. I just don't DD difficulty, in the sense that I'm not going to play anything with characters that are basically just resources that you lose over and over again.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the game is still VERY early access and it's solid. Remember that the first game was barebones and had fuck-tons of revisions made to it. When DD1 went into early access, it had... 3 areas and 3 bosses and only a handful of pcs, as I recall. DD2's early access has a leg up on DD1's early access, imo.

I do think there is a lot of room for improvement. For example, I think that the relationship mechanic would be much better if players had more control over what kind of relationship you're facilitating. I think there are some balancing issues. I think there needs to be a LOT more content for it to hold up (same thing applied to DD1's early access). I think that the players need to be given more choices like they had in DD1; DD2 feels like it has "streamlined" too much choice away right now.

You're comparing early access DD2 to the complete product of DD1. That's stupid.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the game is still VERY early access and it's solid. Remember that the first game was barebones and had fuck-tons of revisions made to it. When DD1 went into early access, it had... 3 areas and 3 bosses and only a handful of pcs, as I recall. DD2's early access has a leg up on DD1's early access, imo.

I do think there is a lot of room for improvement. For example, I think that the relationship mechanic would be much better if players had more control over what kind of relationship you're facilitating. I think there are some balancing issues. I think there needs to be a LOT more content for it to hold up (same thing applied to DD1's early access). I think that the players need to be given more choices like they had in DD1; DD2 feels like it has "streamlined" too much choice away right now.

You're comparing early access DD2 to the complete product of DD1. That's stupid.

The general flow of the game was there in DD1, just as it is in DD2. Its baby's first darkest dungeon. Nothing you do matters as there are literally 0 lasting consequences for a failed run. Its slay the spire, and slay the spire already exists.

It's a solid game, but it absolutely does not hold up as a sequel to the original. More like Darkest Dungeon: Mystic Quest.

Literally a different title would have made this game better, rather than pretending to be what it clearly is not.

Haven't tried it yet, and won't until it leaves early access.

Kind of disappointed to hear it was such a dramatic shift in concept (I was really interested in seeing it was going to be about a mobile caravan, less interested in the roguelike aspects), but given that there's apparently so much content missing and some balance issues, I suspect the full release will be a lot better.

Will keep an eye on it and am interested in hearing opinions.

---

Notschmendrake posted...

Gutted everything that made the first game awesome so they could make a worse version of slay the spire.

Consequences are not lasting. I am invested 0%in any of my heroes because if they fail then it's just "oh well, let's bring in a new party with the exact same characters"

It's not even hard, it's just boring. One of your dudes lands on death's door and you'd be flipping out if it was darkest dungeon 1. In dd2 someone hits deaths door and it's just kinda like "meh. Maybe I start over, maybe she lives, no biggie either way"

Red hook done fucked up.

It's in Early Access. It is on Epic Store for a year after all.
---

I'm not worried. It looks like fun from what I have seen.

Of course I knew that they were taking the game in a different direction and I think thats fine. They did a lot of work on DD1 and shaking up the formula is a good thing. Even if its not great right now it literally just entered early access. This is typically why wait until a game is in 1.0 and has good reviews.

But anyway I love the idea of Darkest Dungeon meets Organ/Oregon Trail. The map node system was NOT pioneered by Slay the Spire. FTL did it WAY before it did and many other Roguelites such as One Step from Eden implement it and it works great for Rougelites. Thats another thing I disliked about DD1 is it marketed itself as a "Roguelite/like" yet over 54 hours of play across a couple profiles, I never got gameover screen. DD2 seems like it will implement a deathloop much better.

The original game took a long time to develop into what it eventually became. Curious how this game will be in a couple years.

---