I had to try Dark Souls II a few times before finding my stride — or more accurately, finding the first path out of the starting hub. There are multiple exits from Majula, but I missed both: a chain lever camouflaged against stone, and a path wrapping around a cliff. Dark Souls II does this constantly — hides critical information not through clever design but through poor communication. The first game's interconnected world taught you its rules through architecture. Dark Souls II teaches through trial, error, and the nagging suspicion that some of the error was the game's fault, not yours.

Majula: A Hub That Replaces Interconnection

Dark Souls II Majula — the sunset hub area that connects branching paths in place of the original's interconnected world

Where Lordran folded back on itself through shortcuts and elevators, Drangleic branches outward from Majula like spokes on a wheel. Each path leads to a linear series of areas that rarely connect to anything else. The shortcuts are within zones, not between them — a meaningful distinction that makes the world feel like a collection of levels rather than a place. Majula itself is beautiful — a sunset cliff with an ocean view and a melancholy theme that might be the best piece of music in the trilogy — but it serves as a fast-travel menu rather than the organic crossroads that Firelink Shrine was.

ADP and the Hitbox Problem

Dark Souls II combat — the dodge roll and ADP stat that changes invincibility frames and divides the community

Dark Souls II ties dodge roll invincibility frames to a stat called Adaptability (ADP). At low ADP, your dodge roll has fewer i-frames than the first game's worst roll. At high ADP, it feels like Dark Souls 1. This means early-game combat feels sluggish and unfair until you invest enough levels into a stat the game never explains. Combined with hitboxes that are noticeably less precise than the original — attacks tracking through rolls, grab attacks with invisible range extensions — the combat feels like it's fighting you rather than challenging you. The Souls difficulty conversation gets muddier here because the unfairness isn't always intentional design.

Quantity Over Quality

Dark Souls II boss — one of forty-one boss fights that prioritize quantity over the memorable encounters of the original

Dark Souls II has forty-one bosses. Dark Souls 1 had twenty-six. The increase in quantity comes with a decrease in memorability — many DS2 bosses are humanoid knights with similar movesets, and the "multiple enemies in a room" design philosophy appears far too often. The best fights (Fume Knight, Sir Alonne, the Burnt Ivory King) are in the DLC, which is genuinely excellent and arguably better than anything in the base game. The worst fights are forgettable enough that I couldn't name them a week later. When the game focuses — the approach to Drangleic Castle in a rainstorm, the descent into the Black Gulch, the Shrine of Amana's haunting beauty — it creates moments worthy of the series. It just doesn't focus often enough.

The DLC: Where Dark Souls II Actually Delivers

Dark Souls II bonfire — the rest points that anchor a world structure less interconnected than its predecessor

The Crown of the Sunken King, Crown of the Old Iron King, and Crown of the Ivory King — the three DLC packs bundled in Scholar of the First Sin — are where Dark Souls II remembers how to be excellent. Every complaint about the base game's boss design (too many humanoid knights, too many multi-enemy rooms) is addressed: Sinh the Slumbering Dragon fights like a proper Souls boss — airborne, pattern-based, demanding patience over aggression. Fume Knight is widely considered one of the hardest bosses in the franchise, with attack timings that punish panic rolling and reward precise spacing. The Burnt Ivory King's three-phase fight, where you recruit Loyce Knights through exploration before the battle, ties gameplay directly into lore in a way the base game rarely attempts. If I could play the DLC without touching the base game, I'd rate this a 9/10. The base game brings it down to a 7.

Scholar of the First Sin: The Version That Matters

Dark Souls II Scholar of the First Sin — the definitive edition with rearranged enemies and DLC content

Scholar rearranges enemy placement throughout the base game, and the changes are mostly improvements. The tutorial area (Things Betwixt) now has an Ogre that teaches you "this game will kill you" before you reach the first bonfire. Heide's Tower of Flame is populated with Heide Knights that make the area feel like a proper gauntlet rather than a sparse walk. The Dragon Shrine, which was a tedious slog of identical knights in the original, now has a "respect the warriors" mechanic where passive enemies only attack if you run or fight dishonorably. These changes suggest that the development team understood what was wrong with the original design and fixed it — which makes you wonder why they didn't get it right the first time. The visual improvements in Scholar are modest but welcome: better lighting, higher-resolution textures, 60fps on consoles. The complete package — base game + all three DLC + gameplay improvements — is the only version worth playing in 2026.

The Verdict: The Weakest Souls, Still Worth Playing

Dark Souls II Scholar of the First Sin — the definitive edition with rearranged enemies and improved visuals

Dark Souls II is the worst game in the Souls trilogy, and it's still a good game — that's how high the bar is. Scholar of the First Sin rearranges enemy placement, adds the three DLC packs (which are the game's best content), and improves visuals. The Crown trilogy DLC alone — Sunken King, Old Iron King, Ivory King — is worth the purchase. The base game's world design, hitboxes, and boss quality don't reach the heights of Dark Souls 1 or Bloodborne, but the sheer volume of content (40+ hours for a thorough playthrough) and the DLC's genuine excellence make Scholar worth playing. There are apparently multiple endings and reasons to replay — but no thank you.

Dark Souls II occupies an awkward position: too flawed to be remembered fondly alongside its predecessor, too good to be dismissed alongside genuinely bad sequels. The base game is a 6/10 Souls experience stretched across forty hours. The DLC is a 9/10 Souls experience compressed into fifteen. Scholar of the First Sin bundles both and improves the weaker parts, making it the only version that justifies its existence. If someone asks "should I play Dark Souls II?" the answer is "play Scholar, rush to the DLC, and treat the base game as an extended tutorial for the three best boss fights From Software designed before Elden Ring."

There are apparently multiple endings to pursue if it's played again. Maybe that's what the game was referring to in its opening cinematic about cycles of light and dark. If so, that's clever. But no thank you.

All images are official screenshots from their respective publishers. Updated March 31, 2026.