While Dark Souls II largely misunderstands some of the core appeal of earlier games in the series and makes some divisive changes to core mechanics, it offers possibly the most expansive build variety of any Souls title and some of the games' best lore.
Dark Souls II has remained incredibly controversial since its release, and it is the most likely Souls title for newcomers to be told to skip entirely. While I ultimately think that this widespread dismissal is unfair, it's worth understanding the complaints while understanding what philosophical differences might have been brought by the design team to this title.
For one, Dark Souls II certainly substitutes quantity for quality in boss encounters. Many bosses feel samey and redundant, with a large amount of the roster consisting of outright repeats of earlier foes and an over-reliance on humanoid designs. While the bosses can be progressed through in a much larger variety of orders than earlier games even offered, the result is that they are poorly balanced around character progression and feel much easier this time around until a large spike in difficulty in the endgame. I didn't catch it my first time through, but apparently bosses are also much weaker to strafing in this game than the classic approaches of strategic blocking and/or dodging that characterize the highlights of the series.
The character building system in general has gotten an overhaul in the form of some stat adjustments from earlier titles. One enduring (ha) change was an overhaul of the way equip load is increased. In Dark Souls II, instead of Endurance (END) being a stat that increases both stamina and equip load, Vitality (VIT) has been reworked to increase equip load with the new stat of Vigor (VIG) used to increase the character's health pool. This makes a certain amount of sense and challenges players to more carefully weigh (ha again) how they'll balance having good armor with being able to execute more actions and take more hits, and it's in many ways an obvious way to deepen these calculations. Adaptability, or ADP, is a much more controversial change that was not extended. Essentially, ADP's primary function is to increase the new stat of Agility (AGL), which affects rolling invincibility frames. While this is a deeply loathed adjustment by the player base (including myself, as I am one of those obnoxious rolling curved sword katana guys), it kind of makes sense if you think of it as a secondary stat that Dexterity (DEX) users will need to invest in the same as Strength (STR) users will need to invest in VIT. It works great on paper, but rolling i-frames are too useful to players of virtually all playstyles, and it basically means that you'll be dumping early levels into ADP until it's at a level that feels good for you and then moving on to level everything else. Levels are also much easier to come by to offset these stat sinks, and it makes it too easy the enterprising player to rapidly become overpowered.
While some of these changes work and some fail, I do admire the team for trying to tweak the math in the game, and one of the most widely-praised changes to character building comes from power-stancing, the ability to dual wield weapons in a special stance utilized by holding Triangle with the right stat requirements that gives the player a huge new variety of ways to mix and match weapons. Combine this neat new feature with the most expansive weapon selection in any Souls game, and it's clear to see why even the biggest haters can find some merit in the PvP of the game.
Level designs are pretty serviceable. The addition of the torch mechanic leads to some occasional interesting light puzzle elements or unique navigational hurdles, but this mechanic is certainly under-utilized. In Scholar of the First Sin, the only edition I've played, enemy placement is a bit egregious, and the prevalence of "gank squads" can be frustrating. This is balanced by enemies staying dead after multiple deaths, but it can be frustrating in low-level early areas such as No-Man's Wharf to feel that your options are to either repeatedly clear an area of seemingly endless waves of enemies or to avoid combat with well-routed runs. Later areas such as the Iron Keep and Shrine of Amana can be grueling. In general, it hurts that the levels seem to be designed to be combat gauntlets much more often than they're designed to be interesting to explore. Beyond this, world design suffers from a structure of essentially multiple linear pathways to take that are sometimes nonsensical in their execution (most infamously, the elevator up to the Iron Keep, which could have been remedied by the simplest of amendments - make the elevator ascend diagonally so that the arrival at the edge of a mountaintop crater is more obvious to the player).
The railroading of levels in this way and the over-reliance on combat to the detriment of thought-out world-building is definitely a reflection of what I suspect was a major failure of vision on the part of this particular team. While Dark Souls has always been marketed as "that really hard series," Dark Souls II enjoys indulging this conceit (including in very cringe-y immersion-breaking dialogue in the opening cutscene) in the worst possible ways.
While Dark Souls II fails to deliver some of the highlights of the series—strong boss encounters and great level design—it is unfortunately vastly underrated in its lore. Especially with changes introduced in Scholar of the First Sin (that were retroactively added to the base game, despite a lack of fanfare), the "Dark" path in Dark Souls games is deepened greatly by the addition of Aldia's story and his collaboration with Vendrick in trying to understand the role of humans in the gods' plan of continuing to keep the fire burning. Most of the best beats in Dark Souls III can be directly tied back to the way that the Dark Souls II writing team seems to have been just as fascinated by the existence of Kaathe as people like me, and it's admirable that a lot of this addition is delivered in a way that feels very organic to the way the first game presented its lore. The story fails to have the same clarity of purpose as the first game—until I got my first Great Soul, I didn't feel that I was given much direction as to why I was going where I was going besides that it's a Dark Souls game and I'm supposed to move forward wherever I can—but by the end is a contained and fascinating character drama that is probably going to be more readily understood and accessed by a greater amount of the player base than the first game's, and it tows the line well to not undermine the fundamental magic of the Souls storytelling formula by descending into needless exposition.
While I have to admit that Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin left me feeling more exhausted than eager to jump into NG+ (a direct contrast to literally every other game in the franchise), it's still an admirable action RPG that takes some neat creative risks. If you plan on playing Dark Souls III, be sure not to miss this vital installment. I promise it'll enhance that game for you on some level.
Dark Souls II has remained incredibly controversial since its release, and it is the most likely Souls title for newcomers to be told to skip entirely. While I ultimately think that this widespread dismissal is unfair, it's worth understanding the complaints while understanding what philosophical differences might have been brought by the design team to this title.
For one, Dark Souls II certainly substitutes quantity for quality in boss encounters. Many bosses feel samey and redundant, with a large amount of the roster consisting of outright repeats of earlier foes and an over-reliance on humanoid designs. While the bosses can be progressed through in a much larger variety of orders than earlier games even offered, the result is that they are poorly balanced around character progression and feel much easier this time around until a large spike in difficulty in the endgame. I didn't catch it my first time through, but apparently bosses are also much weaker to strafing in this game than the classic approaches of strategic blocking and/or dodging that characterize the highlights of the series.
The character building system in general has gotten an overhaul in the form of some stat adjustments from earlier titles. One enduring (ha) change was an overhaul of the way equip load is increased. In Dark Souls II, instead of Endurance (END) being a stat that increases both stamina and equip load, Vitality (VIT) has been reworked to increase equip load with the new stat of Vigor (VIG) used to increase the character's health pool. This makes a certain amount of sense and challenges players to more carefully weigh (ha again) how they'll balance having good armor with being able to execute more actions and take more hits, and it's in many ways an obvious way to deepen these calculations. Adaptability, or ADP, is a much more controversial change that was not extended. Essentially, ADP's primary function is to increase the new stat of Agility (AGL), which affects rolling invincibility frames. While this is a deeply loathed adjustment by the player base (including myself, as I am one of those obnoxious rolling curved sword katana guys), it kind of makes sense if you think of it as a secondary stat that Dexterity (DEX) users will need to invest in the same as Strength (STR) users will need to invest in VIT. It works great on paper, but rolling i-frames are too useful to players of virtually all playstyles, and it basically means that you'll be dumping early levels into ADP until it's at a level that feels good for you and then moving on to level everything else. Levels are also much easier to come by to offset these stat sinks, and it makes it too easy the enterprising player to rapidly become overpowered.
While some of these changes work and some fail, I do admire the team for trying to tweak the math in the game, and one of the most widely-praised changes to character building comes from power-stancing, the ability to dual wield weapons in a special stance utilized by holding Triangle with the right stat requirements that gives the player a huge new variety of ways to mix and match weapons. Combine this neat new feature with the most expansive weapon selection in any Souls game, and it's clear to see why even the biggest haters can find some merit in the PvP of the game.
Level designs are pretty serviceable. The addition of the torch mechanic leads to some occasional interesting light puzzle elements or unique navigational hurdles, but this mechanic is certainly under-utilized. In Scholar of the First Sin, the only edition I've played, enemy placement is a bit egregious, and the prevalence of "gank squads" can be frustrating. This is balanced by enemies staying dead after multiple deaths, but it can be frustrating in low-level early areas such as No-Man's Wharf to feel that your options are to either repeatedly clear an area of seemingly endless waves of enemies or to avoid combat with well-routed runs. Later areas such as the Iron Keep and Shrine of Amana can be grueling. In general, it hurts that the levels seem to be designed to be combat gauntlets much more often than they're designed to be interesting to explore. Beyond this, world design suffers from a structure of essentially multiple linear pathways to take that are sometimes nonsensical in their execution (most infamously, the elevator up to the Iron Keep, which could have been remedied by the simplest of amendments - make the elevator ascend diagonally so that the arrival at the edge of a mountaintop crater is more obvious to the player).
The railroading of levels in this way and the over-reliance on combat to the detriment of thought-out world-building is definitely a reflection of what I suspect was a major failure of vision on the part of this particular team. While Dark Souls has always been marketed as "that really hard series," Dark Souls II enjoys indulging this conceit (including in very cringe-y immersion-breaking dialogue in the opening cutscene) in the worst possible ways.
While Dark Souls II fails to deliver some of the highlights of the series—strong boss encounters and great level design—it is unfortunately vastly underrated in its lore. Especially with changes introduced in Scholar of the First Sin (that were retroactively added to the base game, despite a lack of fanfare), the "Dark" path in Dark Souls games is deepened greatly by the addition of Aldia's story and his collaboration with Vendrick in trying to understand the role of humans in the gods' plan of continuing to keep the fire burning. Most of the best beats in Dark Souls III can be directly tied back to the way that the Dark Souls II writing team seems to have been just as fascinated by the existence of Kaathe as people like me, and it's admirable that a lot of this addition is delivered in a way that feels very organic to the way the first game presented its lore. The story fails to have the same clarity of purpose as the first game—until I got my first Great Soul, I didn't feel that I was given much direction as to why I was going where I was going besides that it's a Dark Souls game and I'm supposed to move forward wherever I can—but by the end is a contained and fascinating character drama that is probably going to be more readily understood and accessed by a greater amount of the player base than the first game's, and it tows the line well to not undermine the fundamental magic of the Souls storytelling formula by descending into needless exposition.
While I have to admit that Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin left me feeling more exhausted than eager to jump into NG+ (a direct contrast to literally every other game in the franchise), it's still an admirable action RPG that takes some neat creative risks. If you plan on playing Dark Souls III, be sure not to miss this vital installment. I promise it'll enhance that game for you on some level.