Why did the devs ignore what made the first game so fun and successful?

[Brad]

I'll give Redhook points for trying something new and taking the game into a completely different direction but I'm absolutely hating the progression and repetitiveness of the runs. Yeah the first game was repetitive but there was also a much greater sense of progression as you work on building and preparing your roster for a final battle.

In the first game winning or losing a run effected your end goal, maybe you lost a really good hero or gained a good trinket, each run had me on the edge of my seat. After each run in the second game I feel like I just wasted my time, I get some candles but I risked nothing in my venture, I'm still unlocking things so I feel like each run goal is to get as many candles as possible and reach all the hero shrines so I can get all my character abilities, and if I die in the process? it doesn't matter, worst case scenario is you don't get as many candles, it won't effect the overall game in any other way.

The runs are so bland, in the first game you had to make due with the heroes you got, don't have a vestal? well you better try and make due with the crusader on a short run and hope you get one next week. While in this game you can ALWAYS select your perfect team.

And what is up with the driving minigame? if you're going to add a pointless driving system then at least make it entertaining to use, at best it's unremarkable, at worst it's an annoyance just watching the way it bobs around trying to follow my mouse pointer.

On a positive side, I love the paths, would've been a great addition to original game giving much greater diversity to your roster. Also love the graphics, animations, the new hero reputation system is great and fits well with what they did with the gameplay.

[glenn3e]

It does matter if you memory your heroes. Losing them hurts

[Connatic]

Originally posted by Brad:

Why did the devs ignore what made the first game fun for me?

Fixed it for you. Darkest Dungeon was successful for a lot of reasons, and it sure as heck wasn't perfect.

[HighLanderPony]

I like the changes made. I played 16 hours of DD1, watched the rest on YT.

I've been playing over 120+ hours of DD2 and I'm still hooked.

So your mileage may vary.

[MrJane]

Originally posted by HighLanderPony:

I like the changes made. I played 16 hours of DD1, watched the rest on YT.

I've been playing over 120+ hours of DD2 and I'm still hooked.

So your mileage may vary.

Yeah, I hate to admit it, but this guy's right. I have hundreds of hours in DDI and this game... just doesn't do it for me. The problem is, this shouldn't have been billed as a sequel. More of a spin off. It's just so different than the original that it's going to attract different people. And some might get left behind.

[Narrowmind]

Originally posted by Connatic:

Originally posted by Brad:

Why did the devs ignore what made the first game fun for me?

Fixed it for you. Darkest Dungeon was successful for a lot of reasons, and it sure as heck wasn't perfect.

He didn't actually say it was perfect. He said it changed what made it fun and successful. And while some may prefer 2 over 1, the concensus is largely decided by now. This game isn't going to be rated in the 90s, so objectively, it was a lot more fun and successful than this one.

[Brad]

Originally posted by MrJane:

Originally posted by HighLanderPony:

I like the changes made. I played 16 hours of DD1, watched the rest on YT.

I've been playing over 120+ hours of DD2 and I'm still hooked.

So your mileage may vary.

Yeah, I hate to admit it, but this guy's right. I have hundreds of hours in DDI and this game... just doesn't do it for me. The problem is, this shouldn't have been billed as a sequel. More of a spin off. It's just so different than the original that it's going to attract different people. And some might get left behind.

Yeah this is exactly what it feels like, I think it's an ok game but people who have 100+ hours in dd1 like me are going to be pretty disappointed with how watered down this game is in comparison.

[Flavalicious]

The real take way from this thread is the 2 people who are in support for DD2 also gave Dawn of War 3, a universally hated game that had relic drop all support for future development a month after release....A positive, glowing recommendation. Someone call in a chopper, these men have a hill to die on. Lol

Make of that as you will 🤣

[HighLanderPony]

Originally posted by Flavalicious:

The real take way from this thread is the 2 people who are in support for DD2 also gave Dawn of War 3, a universally hated game that had relic drop all support for future development a month after release....A positive, glowing recommendation. Someone call in a chopper, these men have a hill to die on. Lol

Make of that as you will 🤣

If you gonna be a member of my fan club, the least you could do is pay me.

[Overeagerdragon]

Originally posted by Brad:

Originally posted by MrJane:

Yeah, I hate to admit it, but this guy's right. I have hundreds of hours in DDI and this game... just doesn't do it for me. The problem is, this shouldn't have been billed as a sequel. More of a spin off. It's just so different than the original that it's going to attract different people. And some might get left behind.

Yeah this is exactly what it feels like, I think it's an ok game but people who have 100+ hours in dd1 like me are going to be pretty disappointed with how watered down this game is in comparison.

I have about 1K hours in DD1 and am close to reaching some 200hrs in DD2; I like both because I can see how they're not the same genre and (thusly) shouldn't be compared to eachother... they both have their own strengths and weaknesses...

I AM getting rather sick, though, of all the people who just say "bad game is bad becuz bad" like it's an obbjective opinion... news flash... it's not; it's not even a good opinion if you can't at least name SOME thing you don't like about it....

[Yerc2]

While I also believe that DD2 is overall worse than DD1, and that it loses some of it's uniqueness, there are a few things I think have been improved over their DD1 counterpart, or that I just enjoy more.

No matter what changes they made, there would be people who dislike them. If they made no changes, there would be people who dislike that too.
It all comes down to personal preference in the end.

It sucks that this game isn't as deep or fun as DD1. But at the end of the day, I wouldn't say this game is bad.

[glenn3e]

My thoughts on DD2 vs DD1

Combat
DD2 has vastly superior combat with the token system. Your heroes have more skills to choose from and Paths, so there are more builds you can go for which keeps things interesting as long as you are willing to try them out. Trinket-wise, the rarer ones also enable specific builds which is interesting if you can get them.
DD2 > DD1

Camping vs Inn

I’d say this one is a draw. They work differently this time, but they get your team prepared for the next area with some nice interactions.
DD1=DD2

Relationship system

I think I like this one better. There’s at least some measure of control over it in DD2, and whenever you leave the Inn, I get I get excited to see which skill combos just opened up and is better.
DD2 > DD1

Adventuring

I prefer walking in a dungeon over driving the stagecoach. It feels very mechanical in DD2, and running over debris gets repetitive. Feels there should at least some choices here for driving? In DD1, there are curio interactions, so at least there are some sense of exploration.
The few curio nodes in this one all seem to give me bad stuff and usually hurt my relationships so there’s a ‘feelsbad’ aspect to going for them.
DD1 > DD2

Hamlet vs Altar of Hope

Prefer the hamlet as there’s a sense of ownership of your town after a run. Also random events spice runs a little and seeing your heroes go from low level runts to powerful ones over time is great. The altar of hope just feels like a spreadsheet you tick unlocks off after earning candles.
DD1 > DD2.

[domnyy]

You're 100% correct with your entire post. I feel like I could write something 10x longer, but what's the point now? I commend devs for trying different things, but it comes down to I wish they had just taken DD1, and expanded on the entire system. Made it bigger, delve into your personal heroes and relationships, other dungeon game modes (which they tease us with in DD2) and so much more.

All the progress I feel like I'm doing is unlocking points on a line.

[PKPenguin]

I enjoy both games, they are both fun in similar but different ways. If DD1 is more your preference then play that. I'd recommend trying Black Reliquary if you've already beaten DD1, it has its own Steam page and it's an interesting look at how the first game could have been iterated on while sticking more closely to the same formula (though a lot of people also don't like it for that reason, surprise surprise).

It is OK for you to have fun with two different games. It is OK if two games are different and you enjoy both. You don't have to feel bad about enjoying DD1 or abandon it to play DD2 exclusively.

[Connatic]

Originally posted by MrJane:

...just doesn't do it for me. The problem is, this shouldn't have been billed as a sequel. More of a spin off. It's just so different than the original that it's going to attract different people. And some might get left behind.

Not sure why people are so hung up on this. Many games have had sequels that change up the formula, and are still good games. Even if they called this The Dark Stagecoach, you still wouldn't have DD1.5 with the sexy new graphics engine.

Originally posted by Ratlegion:

He didn't actually say it was perfect. He said it changed what made it fun and successful. ...

Again, Darkest Dungeon was successful for a lot of reasons. They changed what made the game fun for him.

...
And while some may prefer 2 over 1, the concensus is largely decided by now. This game isn't going to be rated in the 90s, so objectively, it was a lot more fun and successful than this one.

People try way to hard to make their opinions facts. Objectively, you could say it's scored less, because you have some super fans that hate change, and others that hate EPIC.

Based on user reviews, you could say they are both good and quality games.

[Phyxicx]

Originally posted by HighLanderPony:

I like the changes made. I played 16 hours of DD1, watched the rest on YT.

I've been playing over 120+ hours of DD2 and I'm still hooked.

So your mileage may vary.

I'll be honest, I think this is a major divide in perspectives that is everywhere in the reviews and the discussions of DD2. You have only play 16 hrs of DD1? That might as well be 2 hours in my experience, you really don't accomplish much of anything in DD1 in the first 20 hours. It's very grindy, but you rarely hear fans of the game complain about the grind because the game has a strange fun factor that is hard to explain. (DD2 misses the fun factor in my opinion, but it's still a decent game.) A lot of people have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours in DD1. I'd say after 16 hours you probably didn't experience even close to half of the game. So keep that in mind when you reply to these posts that compare them.

There's probably a large amount of new people to the series because of DD2 that never played DD1. These people won't understand why DD! fans are disappointed with DD2. That's totally fine, but it's important to keep it in mind and not dismiss people just because they have a different perspective because they're a fan of the original game.