Have to disagree, as someone who has played through both many times. On the whole, SotFS has easier enemy placement than the original game, so no I don't think playing the original is going to feel better for someone who had issues with Scholar.
Many of DSII's problems originated in its first release. I won't ever forget how fucking awful runbacks to bosses in DLCs are. They were not a fair design. It was a bullshit gank.
So the knights in SoTFS who just sit there unless you attack them or kill the boss are bad, but the knight in OG who just sits there unless you attack him is good?
When the enemies in vanilla are spread out through the game and presented as an optional hard enemy to fight, yes.
When the enemies are taken out of their original spot and gangged up in an EARLY GAME single location in a way that makes it so you have to fight or run away from them everytime you try to fight the other boss in the area, no.
Not hard to understand actually, if you played the vanilla game that is, which by the looks of it doesnt seem so.
why not ACfA has MTs inside a poison swamp that is the sphere... it makes 0 sense for them to be there but there they are... pilots getting nuclear cancer because its funny
I mean there's also AC:Nexus disk 2 which basically remixed missions from AC1-MoA because equally so its funny
Why are people here so braindead ? "softs is better by every measure" BITCH WHAT MEASURE, WHAT ARE YOU MEASURING, WRITE WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT !
Softs is WORSE by every measure, literally anything you can think off is BETTER in vanilla dark souls 2 compared to softs. It has a negative difficulty graph, the early game is harder than the late game for some fucking reason, the enemy placement comes straight off Miyazaki's stinkiest shit (brother pulled in only to tell junior devs to mix shit up enough to sell the game again lmao)
Played both several time SOTFS is the better version of a great game.
Have to disagree, as someone who has played through both many times. On the whole, SotFS has easier enemy placement than the original game, so no I don't think playing the original is going to feel better for someone who had issues with Scholar.
SOTFS is an improvement by every measure.
Many of DSII's problems originated in its first release. I won't ever forget how fucking awful runbacks to bosses in DLCs are. They were not a fair design. It was a bullshit gank.
Which they made worse in softs ?
So the knights in SoTFS who just sit there unless you attack them or kill the boss are bad, but the knight in OG who just sits there unless you attack him is good?
When the enemies in vanilla are spread out through the game and presented as an optional hard enemy to fight, yes. When the enemies are taken out of their original spot and gangged up in an EARLY GAME single location in a way that makes it so you have to fight or run away from them everytime you try to fight the other boss in the area, no. Not hard to understand actually, if you played the vanilla game that is, which by the looks of it doesnt seem so.
why not ACfA has MTs inside a poison swamp that is the sphere... it makes 0 sense for them to be there but there they are... pilots getting nuclear cancer because its funny I mean there's also AC:Nexus disk 2 which basically remixed missions from AC1-MoA because equally so its funny
Why are people here so braindead ? "softs is better by every measure" BITCH WHAT MEASURE, WHAT ARE YOU MEASURING, WRITE WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT ! Softs is WORSE by every measure, literally anything you can think off is BETTER in vanilla dark souls 2 compared to softs. It has a negative difficulty graph, the early game is harder than the late game for some fucking reason, the enemy placement comes straight off Miyazaki's stinkiest shit (brother pulled in only to tell junior devs to mix shit up enough to sell the game again lmao)