Darkest Dungeon 2 is better than DD1

[ItsJ-]

I want to start this by saying that both games are great and have their own identity.

However in my opinion Darkest Dungeon 2 brings much more of a challenge, adds more variety, has a more interesting story/lore, better graphics, better combat, and creates a more re-playable game with its new rogue-like identity.

For me darkest dungeon 1 was such a predictable game once you got a few hours into it. You would be able to memorize what gear to bring for each area, predict what enemies were in each area, and just build super teams that would snowball to the end of the game. The combat was simple and not very balanced, the game being impressive for its time is visually dated, and the challenge just isn't there once you learn each area of the game. The main pros for darkest dungeon was its mod support and the relationship you made with your characters it ends at that when compared to DD2.

Darkest dungeon 2 is just a better successor to the first game. It took the fun elements of darkest dungeon 1 and created one of the best turn based rogue-likes by keeping its old identity, but evolving to not feel like just a re-skin of the last game. Cant wait to see where this game goes. I hope to see something like a endless mode for darkest dungeon 2 eventually to be able to compete on a leader board and feel more attached to my characters in a longer form run.

[Gal Kraft]

Agreed. Mainly I'm just more likely to pick back up some DD2 play because even going for a grand slam seems to take less time.

Vestal on the other hand...

[ItsJ-]

Originally posted by Gal Kraft:

Agreed. Mainly I'm just more likely to pick back up some DD2 play because even going for a grand slam seems to take less time.

Vestal on the other hand...

Yeah i found this game is so much easier to load up and play for a few hours than the predecessor as well. It also seems like it has a higher skill ceiling, but more welcoming to entry level players. Overall it just feels like Red Hook took their experience over the time of DD1 and just made a better game all around.

[SlantedRhetoric]

From what I've played so far, I don't think a direct comparison is fair. Like Hand of Fate 1 vs HoF 2, or Legend of Grimrock 1 vs 2.

[RopeDrink]

Which is why I've always said 'I love both for very different reasons'. Sometimes, I like the more linear style, the bite-sized dungeons, the focus on compositions instead of setup, etc -- and other times, I just want to boot up DD2, pick four favourites, and go for a more rogue-lite drive without having to rebuild Hamlet number #89 million.

Despite being at the very beginning of the post-release content cycle, DD2 has (almost) gotten as many hours out of me as the previous game -- which I never sullied with content mods because I loved it just the way it was.

If/When DD2 gets its own version of Endless Mode and/or a few more bells and whistles, I'll be happy out.

[goobie snoobert]

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

adds more variety

while it's true that there's more variety within each individual character, you can't pick the same character twice or more, which really gimps party composition variety

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

has a more interesting story/lore

no. the ancestor being a ♥♥♥♥ and reaping what he has sown is far more interesting

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

better combat

no. the removal of accuracy, dodge, and protection stats made the game less exciting and unpredictable. in DD1, nothing is certain

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

creates a more re-playable game with its new rogue-like identity

idk about you but the runs last way too long for me to be like "hm, i might as well do a DD2 run just for the sake of it". a StS run takes like what, 30 minutes on average? very easy to fit into your day. whereas a DD2 run takes over 2 hours due to all the downtime
a DD1 playthrough obviously takes far longer to complete, but it's easy to enjoy it in short bursts by just doing a few dungeons

obviously this is all really subjective. i don't think DD2 did any of these things poorly necessarily; it's still a really good game, i just don't think it pulled them off as well as the first game

[Raki]

I agree with the OP, for me DD2 has been an even better experience than DD1, and I played that one a lot as well.

The fact that the DLC had a really positive impact is also a very good sign. A lot more people are playing the game now, even after almost a month of release, and the forum here is also more active.

I have high hopes for this game and really look forward to 2024.

[Guzu]

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

I want to start this by saying that both games are great and have their own identity.

Yup, similar but also different games.

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

However in my opinion Darkest Dungeon 2 brings much more of a challenge, adds more variety, has a more interesting story/lore, better graphics, better combat, and creates a more re-playable game with its new rogue-like identity.

Challenge
Played both games on the highest difficulty and various self-imposed challenges and DD2 is by far easier.

Variety
Depends how you look at it. Variety of builds certainly DD2. Variety in terms of how the runs feel then it's DD1.

Story and Lore
For me, DD1 is the clear winner here. The depth of the story, the delivery, the bits of pieces you get along the way is far more immersive and interesting than the prologue you get at the start of the run.

Better Graphics
Without a doubt DD2

Better Combat
Again DD2

Replay-ability
DD1 for me. Run variety in DD2 is nigh to 0. Same areas over and over again with the only difference being the last boss. While there is build variety in DD2, the complete lack of proper balancing cuts it down to about 1/3 of the possible builds. Once you're done with the story, which is only 5 acts there isn't much there for the average player. Sure, you can start farming memories but that's honestly very, very boring and the infernal flames aren't really a run mod either.

[J0ust]

"Better" is subjective, not a statement of fact. The only thing that can be stated as an objective fact is that it is different.

It desperately needs Workshop support, but I suspect the window has already closed on that opportunity, Part of why the original is beloved (and still relevant) is its amazing modding community and content. Which is entirely absent from the sequel, and likely always will be.

And this is coming from someone who prefers the sequel, btw.

[ItsJ-]

Originally posted by goobie snoobert:

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

adds more variety

while it's true that there's more variety within each individual character, you can't pick the same character twice or more, which really gimps party composition variety

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

has a more interesting story/lore

no. the ancestor being a ♥♥♥♥ and reaping what he has sown is far more interesting

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

better combat

no. the removal of accuracy, dodge, and protection stats made the game less exciting and unpredictable. in DD1, nothing is certain

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

creates a more re-playable game with its new rogue-like identity

idk about you but the runs last way too long for me to be like "hm, i might as well do a DD2 run just for the sake of it". a StS run takes like what, 30 minutes on average? very easy to fit into your day. whereas a DD2 run takes over 2 hours due to all the downtime
a DD1 playthrough obviously takes far longer to complete, but it's easy to enjoy it in short bursts by just doing a few dungeons

obviously this is all really subjective. i don't think DD2 did any of these things poorly necessarily; it's still a really good game, i just don't think it pulled them off as well as the first game

Originally posted by goobie snoobert:

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

adds more variety

while it's true that there's more variety within each individual character, you can't pick the same character twice or more, which really gimps party composition variety

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

has a more interesting story/lore

no. the ancestor being a ♥♥♥♥ and reaping what he has sown is far more interesting

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

better combat

no. the removal of accuracy, dodge, and protection stats made the game less exciting and unpredictable. in DD1, nothing is certain

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

creates a more re-playable game with its new rogue-like identity

idk about you but the runs last way too long for me to be like "hm, i might as well do a DD2 run just for the sake of it". a StS run takes like what, 30 minutes on average? very easy to fit into your day. whereas a DD2 run takes over 2 hours due to all the downtime
a DD1 playthrough obviously takes far longer to complete, but it's easy to enjoy it in short bursts by just doing a few dungeons

obviously this is all really subjective. i don't think DD2 did any of these things poorly necessarily; it's still a really good game, i just don't think it pulled them off as well as the first game

All my opinion and i respect that you like DD1 more but...

Being able to use the same character more than once created a lot of broken teams its better to only be allowed to play one character each imo

i couldn't be bothered to even pay attention to the story in DD1 i didn't even notice it was there tbh

The combat in DD1 is so over simplified its nothing but spam stun/daze and do big dmg combos. The randomness of stats was just to try and balance the brokenness you can do in that game. Saying nothing was certain is very extreme considering how much prep time you get.

That in my opinion is the problem with DD1 your run is much longer and you can over prepare like crazy for everything making the game substantially easier imo.

[ItsJ-]

Originally posted by Shalai:

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

I want to start this by saying that both games are great and have their own identity.

Yup, similar but also different games.

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

However in my opinion Darkest Dungeon 2 brings much more of a challenge, adds more variety, has a more interesting story/lore, better graphics, better combat, and creates a more re-playable game with its new rogue-like identity.

Challenge
Played both games on the highest difficulty and various self-imposed challenges and DD2 is by far easier.

Variety
Depends how you look at it. Variety of builds certainly DD2. Variety in terms of how the runs feel then it's DD1.

Story and Lore
For me, DD1 is the clear winner here. The depth of the story, the delivery, the bits of pieces you get along the way is far more immersive and interesting than the prologue you get at the start of the run.

Better Graphics
Without a doubt DD2

Better Combat
Again DD2

Replay-ability
DD1 for me. Run variety in DD2 is nigh to 0. Same areas over and over again with the only difference being the last boss. While there is build variety in DD2, the complete lack of proper balancing cuts it down to about 1/3 of the possible builds. Once you're done with the story, which is only 5 acts there isn't much there for the average player. Sure, you can start farming memories but that's honestly very, very boring and the infernal flames aren't really a run mod either.

All my opinion and i respect that you like DD1 more but

DD2 is far more challenging imo. You have a much more limited window to try and make what you have work and far less time and funds to prepare for each surprise that you can encounter. Every single run of DD1 is so soft balled. You can over prepare insanely for every challenge.

This goes into variety for me as well. I don't really see what variety DD1 is building for you run wise. I played both my runs on DD1 almost the same. Same upgrade path, same dungeon progress, same heroes.

I never really even noticed DD1 lore you had to kinda go out of your way to know its there. I choose to skip every page i got. The lore for me was only interesting after i watched youtube videos. DD2 presents the lore for each character much better than DD1 did imo.

DD1 is the same areas over and over again aswell though? at least with DD2 you had road routes that would change the order of which you would traverse and had to pick a region based on your build to fight a liar boss. For me if you want to compare this than DD1 and DD2 are the same length of time to complete. Even though i completed DD1 much faster than DD2 Acts 1-5. Both games are repetitive in this aspect with that line of reasoning.

[ItsJ-]

Originally posted by J0ust:

"Better" is subjective, not a statement of fact. The only thing that can be stated as an objective fact is that it is different.

It desperately needs Workshop support, but I suspect the window has already closed on that opportunity, Part of why the original is beloved (and still relevant) is its amazing modding community and content. Which is entirely absent from the sequel, and likely always will be.

And this is coming from someone who prefers the sequel, btw.

I think the mods is why so many people still like DD1 so much. If they were forced to only play Vanilla DD1 they would have moved on much sooner imo. It's what keeps that game alive.

Will most likely see mod support once this game has reached its life cycle. Mods destroy the possibility of future sales on DLC for this game and Redhook isn't ready to move on from this title yet which imo is a GOOD thing.

I never really played many mods because i played darkest dungeon 1 on my switch and only played the pc version for a short time way back who knows when

[SlantedRhetoric]

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

All my opinion and i respect that you like DD1 more but

DD2 is far more challenging imo. You have a much more limited window to try and make what you have work and far less time and funds to prepare for each surprise that you can encounter. Every single run of DD1 is so soft balled. You can over prepare insanely for every challenge.

Because it's a campaign with runs in it, rather than a campaign that is comprised of one long run.

You're comparing a resource management/dungeon crawler hybrid to an adventure game. The comparisons don't really match up in a cogent enough way for it to make sense to call one better at any aspect in particular way.

Even the art style and theme of the games are each better suited for their respective sub-genre. You don't need or even want fully 3d rendered characters in a game where the characters are what amounts to hired muscle that the player is neither expected nor encouraged to have any deeper understanding of other than their class, whereas in a character-focused adventure game like this, it makes more sense to figuratively and literally flesh out each class as they're distinct characters with in-game, distinct backstories.

Consider for a moment how you'd view this comparison if this wasn't titled "Darkest Dungeon 2" and didn't actually have anything to do with the original game, but was a standalone title. The mismatch in trying to make a comparison between the two becomes rather clear in doing so.

For what it's worth I think both are better than the other in their sub-genres. Because DD1 isn't an adventure game with a strong narrative component whilst DD2, from what I've played so far, is a pretty straightforward point A to point B adventure roguelite with a bit of variety. Out of the games in my library that are tagged "roguelite" DD1 is more like Loop Hero while this is more like Across the Obelisk, though both are card games, I think you get the idea.

[calderon]

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

However in my opinion Darkest Dungeon 2 brings much more of a challenge

The only challenge in this game is a bunch of series of cases:
- combo of 2-3 bosses
- boredom
- bugs
- unfinished regions, encounters and much more.

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

, adds more variety, has a more interesting story/lore, better graphics, better combat, and creates a more re-playable game with its new rogue-like identity.

Is there a story there in DD2? I've played over 300 hs and had seen quite nothing of it (except shrine of reflection).
DD2 added boredom to DD universe.

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

For me darkest dungeon 1 was such a predictable game once you got a few hours into it. You would be able to memorize what gear to bring for each area, predict what enemies were in each area, and just build super teams that would snowball to the end of the game. The combat was simple and not very balanced, the game being impressive for its time is visually dated, and the challenge just isn't there once you learn each area of the game.

Try to finish DD1 with the usual suspects. After that you can compare DD1 with DD2.

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

Darkest dungeon 2 is just a better successor to the first game.

The only true, reliable and objective measure of "successor" is the number of active players. Red Hook failed to convince the vast majority of active DD1 players. 8-year DD1 has still more active players than DD2. The reviews of DD1 are a way better too.
Since its release DD2 is still no successor to DD1.

[RopeDrink]

Originally posted by calderon:

Originally posted by ItsJ-:

For me darkest dungeon 1 was such a predictable game once you got a few hours into it. You would be able to memorize what gear to bring for each area, predict what enemies were in each area, and just build super teams that would snowball to the end of the game. The combat was simple and not very balanced, the game being impressive for its time is visually dated, and the challenge just isn't there once you learn each area of the game.

Try to finish DD1 with the usual suspects. After that you can compare DD1 with DD2.

The Usual Suspects are one of the most balanced teams in DD1 - sporting the closest thing to a broken hero (who will win most fights on her own). The Queen of Stuns, the Queen of Healing, the ultimate Generalist, and one of the most flexible damage picks, all capable of being mixed around and working just fine.

You can play them as the Inverted Bunch to strip a lot of their fight-opening meta-power and still do very well - capable of comfort from Week 1 all the way to the finale because it has all bases covered, lacking only specific boss-cheese elements - so I'm not sure why you'd tell someone to win that way before making a comparison. It's not going to change their opinion.

In fact, if they find the game too easy or unbalanced, stomping with the most bog-standard team will simply strengthen their view rather than disprove it.

You can beat DD1 with Quad Antiquarians if you have the time and patience for it, so the Usual Suspects are a veritable stomp-comp by comparison - beaten only by teams that abuse the hidden mechanics even more than the Usuals do.

[calderon]

Originally posted by RopeDrink:

... so I'm not sure why you'd tell someone to win that way before making a comparison. It's not going to change their opinion.

It is the first quartet in DD1 like a quartet at the crossroads in DD2.