I am talking about the area as a whole (aesthetically and mechanically); the lighting system would definitely affect your visibility, ability to use shields and damage output (two handed). I found the area weird from an aesthetic point of view; it is a BRIGHT cave over 500ft below. I used SweetFX and other post-processing shaders to improve a lot of areas in case you are interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWSR9fnVd7A
Still can't see why making everything so dark would benefit the gameplay. Granted, it looks nice but as others and myself have pointed out a game so dark you cannot see well is not exactly what I would call fun. Specially in a game where the combat mechanics are the core of the experience. I prefer my shield over a torch (even more in DS2 since there are a lot of nice looking games comparing to the other games), and even though I understand why would someone use that particular mod I don't share your point of view and I'm totally ok with Fromsoft abandoning that lighting system.
The A.I is still stupid; just as stupid as DkS1 enemies. Some mobs are just more aggressive, and NPCs are completely borderline batshit broken roll-cancel poise tanks. I am talking about the enemy placement in Shulva and DkSII as a whole. Enemies are just thrown randomly into groups or traps instead of reasonably sized groups where each member is placed in a meaningful place.
I have never stated having problems fighting groups of mobs or exploiting their A.I. In fact I did complain about having to only cheese their A.I for a clean fight. The problem with DkSII is the stupid slow attacks that have a lot of active frames, which in conjunction with good tracking and more than one enemy to swing, it makes fights tedious and forces the player to invest in ADP (which is a stupid STAT).
I've fought mobs on SL1 with 50% HP naked and other restrictions (challenge run). The game is clunky (especially with bad hitboxes and input storing) and slow, and you have to run around A LOT. All of this have nothing to do with enemy placement because mobs will bum rush you either way; they are thrown randomly in most cases unless it is a trap.
You see, talking about a stat and just saying is "stupid" don't help the discussion. I actually like what they did with
Adaptability, it's ok to have an stat tied to certain actions like rolling and using healing items, that way when you're invading someone and they try to heal I can actually have a chance to prevent that, it's the same with rolling: you want to have more iframes?, good, then level up and invest in this stat. As I see it the more difficulties a low level character has, the better, that way it makes difficult for experienced players to mess with new players during invasions early in the game.
Regarding enemies, I don't know what to say here to be honest. The way I see it I've been playing DS and DS 2 the same way and don't find any meaningful differences other than the aggressiveness of some enemies, and some of them having a lot of poise was not problematic at all in my opinion, I suppose I just dealt with it. I recognize it did affect the way other (arguably) more experienced players would play, so I understand the complains in this regard even though those didn't ruin the game for me.
I don't find the said areas impressive, especially Iron Keep. The game does have bad textures, and its lighting system is still fine but weird at times. Regarding the Lost Bastille, it is one of the most boring places aesthetically due to its low polygon count, bad textures and the way the place is lit. The place has a lot of potential, but it was ruined with the nerf of the lighting system and textures. AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ENEMIES AND GAME MECHANICS HERE.
You are supposed to use a torch in Amana to avoid cliffs, but you can easily avoid them in the game. With my mod, it is impossible to tell whether it is a cliff. Also, Shrine has a stupid ambient lighting that I got rid off (or decreased) in my mod; now it has better contrast with the bright rays that go through the branches
Well, I do. Specially because I tend to pay more attention to the artistic design instead of the quality of the textures, particle effects, quantity of polygons, etc. Yes, having better textures and a better lighting system (among many other things) will always enhance the experience of playing a good game I will not argue about that. The best looking games I have ever played are from previous console generations, though. I hope that that statement helps to make clear why I don't exactly agree with you when it comes to how great or terrible are some of the areas in DS II.
NPCs around Demon's souls and Dark Souls had side quests, and they are related to the place they are found in (in most cases). I found the game lacking when it comes to NPCs and side quests.
Well, that's because a lot of people have analyzed those 2 games a lot, which is proof of how good they are. In the case of DSII there are a lot of theories already, one of my favorites is about Magerold being Jester Thomas based on many things, one of the arguments is actually related to the locations where you met those 2 characters.
I only compared DkSII to some of its predecessors' aesthetics and NPCs. I simply think that DkSII needs refinement in the said areas for a better experience, and I went as far as to mod it. Also, I am not ignoring any issues that DeS and DkS had; I do have complaints about both games and they should have been addressed in DkSII. Justifying a sequel's "issues" by claiming that the said issues existed in the predecessors is always a bad argument, especially when the sequel had a larger budget to help address the said issues.
I am not justifying the issues DSII have by saying that the other games had problems too. They clearly addressed some of the problems the previous games have and many of those solutions modified the game in ways many fans found disappointing. As I said, I just find most of the negative criticism to be a little bit unjustified at times.
