• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dark Souls III [Opening Cinematic]

finalflame

Gold Member
jp pc release is also 4/12

RG0BS1U.gif
 

Mman235

Member
Anyone else expects the cinematic to be the same in the game, except
Gwyn rises from one of the graves as well
?

I would lose my shit.

Especially if it meant we got to fight the "real" Gwyn, as opposed to shadow of what he used to be at the end of Dark Souls.

The primary antagonistic force of darkness became a side quest. Manus was a foot-note in Dark Souls 2 and it is never explained how he (and by extension, the darkness) went from some feral force of nature to some political scheming queen...somehow...

That Nashandra and Darklurker are fragments of what Manus was was made pretty clear, and then the DLC clarified it further with more fragments.

Why were dragons alive and thriving when Gwyn had eliminated all of them? The Stone Dragon seems pretty insignificant, given the abundance of dragon related lore in 2.

Because they're artificial. The one in the Sunken King is the only "real" dragon in the game.

Given that these things aren't especially obscure (by Souls standards that is) they aren't the best examples of things that supposedly aren't explained.
 

dlauv

Member
The epic conclusion to the story no one completely understands.

But at least the hype train has started up again.
 

Skii

Member
Won't be playing this game until June after my exams. This will be torture. It looks amazing. It is the true sequel to Dark Souls!
 

cerulily

Member
That Nashandra and Darklurker are fragments of what Manus was

I'm not arguing this. But it doesn't address my point. I KNEW this, and this is the problem. How is this possible? Why is the fragments' nature so VASTLY different from the manus we knew before? Why is the nature of the darkness (the force intrinsically tied to manus) not addressed, and completely sidelined?

How is saying "X is a fragment of Y" not simply a name-drop? Basically, what does Dark Souls 2 show that substantiates this relationship in any way other than just saying it is the case, given how vastly different the actual abilities and nature of Manus and the darkness?

This is my problem. it is a sequel in name only, and irrevocably harmed the lore.
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
I'm not arguing this. But it doesn't address my point. I KNEW this, and this is the problem. How is this possible? Why is the fragments' nature so VASTLY different from the manus we knew before? Why is the nature of the darkness (the force intrinsically tied to manus) not addressed, and completely sidelined?

How is saying "X is a fragment of Y" not simply a name-drop? Basically, what does Dark Souls 2 show that substantiates this relationship in any way other than just saying it is the case, given how vastly different the actual abilities and nature of Manus and the darkness?

This is my problem. it is a sequel in name only, and irrevocably harmed the lore.

Because Manus was the embodiment of humanity and all the fragments were each one aspect of humanity given form, like Want or Fear.
 

Mman235

Member
I'm not arguing this. But it doesn't address my point. I KNEW this, and this is the problem. How is this possible? Why is the fragments' nature so VASTLY different from the manus we knew before? Why is the nature of the darkness (the force intrinsically tied to manus) not addressed, and completely sidelined?

How is saying "X is a fragment of Y" not simply a name-drop? Basically, what does Dark Souls 2 show that substantiates this relationship in any way other than just saying it is the case, given how vastly different the actual abilities and nature of Manus and the darkness?

This is my problem. it is a sequel in name only, and irrevocably harmed the lore.

Your post seemed to contextualise it as you not understanding those things. "I don't like what they did to this lore" is a very different argument to "I don't understand this lore".
 

Ferr986

Member
Oh.. it was random... i'm not going to "get into it" but anyone who thinks dark souls 2 had even half of the intelligibility of dark souls 1 is deluding themselves.

Dark souls 2 lore videos are basically fan-fiction half the time "maybe x means y!"

For example. Who was Heide? Why are his nights across the land? Why does he have a tower of flame? Why is Orenstein there? I've platinumed this game, and i still can't tell you because none of it is explained by the heide items, or inferred by the knights locations in the game. They're just randomly strewn about. Even more-so in SOTFS.

"Scholar of the first sin" should instead read "summary of the first game" because that's basically all that character functions as.

There was never a "Cycle", it was just something DaS2 tacked on to justify the exact same game play formula. The primary antagonistic force of darkness became a side quest. Manus was a foot-note in Dark Souls 2 and it is never explained how he (and by extension, the darkness) went from some feral force of nature to some political scheming queen...somehow...

Why were dragons alive and thriving when Gwyn had eliminated all of them? The Stone Dragon seems pretty insignificant, given the abundance of dragon related lore in 2.

I could go on forever. DLC areas not withstanding. Dark Souls 2 had literally nothing to do with dark souls 1 except for a few name drops and the constant "OMG THIS COULD BE LORDRAN!" carrot dangled in the player's face in random dialogues.

For a counter example. Epic Name Bro correctly guessed the dark root garden was the ruins of Oolacile months before the DLC dropped merely through the location of NPC's and the nature of the enemies and items found in the area. In fact, the DLC would not have been even as remotely impactful if the main game didn't paint (what seemed to be) a very clear and distinct portrait of a consistent hero figure through item text peppered throughout the game. That's how good and intricate Dark Souls was. You couldn't infer anything even remotely as consistent in Dark Souls 2. Vaati himself even stopped doing lore videos in Dark 2 because of this problem.

Dark Souls 1 had intricate and obfuscated lore, but it was all within the game. Dark Souls 2 is obfuscated because it's just not present, and 1/2 the "lore" is just fan-fiction filling in the missing stuff.

How there was never a cycle? of course there was. Dark 1 already shows the flame weakening, and you can either link it again or let it fade and start the age of dark. That clearly shows how the curse is a cycle.

Rest has been already answered.

People criticized those parts of DS2 because the references were often shoved in your face (oh hey look you're fighting Ornstein- why? Who cares lol!) and the world design was clumsy, which cheapened the impact that callbacks had.

I really don't see how world design has much to do but fair enough. Can't really say much about Dark 3 yet even though a look-a-like Andre smither (or him himself) seems as much "shoved in your face". But of course, we'll see, and honestly, won't mind if it's the case.
 

Bethell

Member
Anyone got a TLDR of DS1/2 universe lore? I have 0 clue what the fuck is going on and all that trailer does is overwhelm me with more stuff I wanna know about.
 
Man this trailer really reminds me of the first Dark Souls. That trailer was awesome! This gave me the same exact vibe! I skipped Dark Souls 2 but played the shit out of Bloodborne, really looking forward to this.
 

Auctopus

Member
Decided to watch even though I'm on blackout seeing as I'd see all this before the game started anyway.


Really, really liked it. It has that vibe of Dark Souls 1 that DS2 never had. Loved that magma looking "Saint of the Deep".
 

Thewonandonly

Junior Member
Imagine this was your first Souls game. Like, what the hell is she even talking about?

"The Lord of Cinder will bring a new flame to link the ash of Lothric and..."

WHAT.

What are you talking about Ive beat every soul's game five times at least and I still have no idea what their talking about.

This intro was pretty hype. Not as hype as the first one but more hype then the second one.
 

AlanOC91

Member
So I thought this was out in March until yesterday when I googled the release and found out it was like the 12th of April or something and I'm going abroad foreign for a week between 10th and 17th.

Please....what did I do to deserve this...
 
There's some Japanese event reports that mention the following... (unconfirmed)

Weapons coming back based on the loading screens:
Dagger, Parrying Dagger, Halberd, Lucern, Large Scythe, Club, Large Club, Morning Star, Sun Straight Sword, Zwei, Claymore, Hand Ax, Battle Ax, Whip, Barbed Whip

Weird name stuff: Large Crow Dagger(?), Ilshiel Dagger(?), Dragon Cutting Ax

Faram Helmet/Gauntlets, Lucatiel Mask, Mo-on Armor(?)

Rings: Life Ring, Red Tearstone, Flynn Ring, Lightning Defense ring, Magic Attack Up/Physical Defense Down ring

Pyro/Miracles:
Fire Ball, Black Flame, Poison Fog
Force, Cast Light, Vow of Silence

Battle Arts:
The whip attacks through shields and does stamina damage.
Sun Straight Sword strengthens your summons.
Large Knife(?) gets sharper (damage buff)

Lots of weapons available at the start, including Great Sword and Scimitar.

Weapon Enhancement includes Lighting, Fire

No Andre drop-kick, he dies in one hit but revives.

Three summons confirmed...ish.
 
It's not up for preorder on PSN yet...

First Dark Souls game, but I bought Bloodborne on release and platinumed it. Bought the DLC for it and got the trophies for that as well. Favorite PS4 so far.

Saw some vids of beta for this and became hooked and I want to preorder it.
 
Anyone got a TLDR of DS1/2 universe lore? I have 0 clue what the fuck is going on and all that trailer does is overwhelm me with more stuff I wanna know about.
Long ago, everything was stone. Then fire came and burned it all. In this fire some cool dudes prospered but as all flames do, the fire began to fade. Now, there are only ashes.

However, sometimes there's still a spark hidden within those ashes that can rekindle the long lost flames.
 
Anyone got a TLDR of DS1/2 universe lore? I have 0 clue what the fuck is going on and all that trailer does is overwhelm me with more stuff I wanna know about.

The first flame is constantly on the verge of going out that would cause bad stuff to happen. It is your job to stop that.

DARK SOULS.
 

140.85

Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled
This bodes well for the game because we're back to the focus being on the world and the player being a small player in the grand scheme of things. As opposed to DS2 where the focus was on the player from the beginning.
 
So the new Chosen Undead is the Unkindled ?
I guess that fits thematically with the protags bearing (a part of?) the Dark Soul and having the potential to end the Age of Fire.
I never really understood what the interaction between Pygmy, Manus and the Chosen Undead was though.

I'm going to shit myself if Gwyn is one of the awakened Lords of Cinder.

So I thought this was out in March until yesterday when I googled the release and found out it was like the 12th of April or something and I'm going abroad foreign for a week between 10th and 17th.

Please....what did I do to deserve this...
Japan gets it in March. :(
 

cerulily

Member
How there was never a cycle? of course there was. Dark 1 already shows the flame weakening, and you can either link it again or let it fade and start the age of dark. That clearly shows how the curse is a cycle.

Rest has been already answered.

This isn't a cycle. It's a fork in the road. You can kick the can or just say fuck it. That entire game constantly said the flames WILL fade. You're just delaying the inevitable. This isn't a cycle. A cycle is A then B then A ad nauseum. Not extend A or B.

This point is so plainly obvious to me that i was shocked more people accepted it at face value.
 

Manu

Member
Anyone got a TLDR of DS1/2 universe lore? I have 0 clue what the fuck is going on and all that trailer does is overwhelm me with more stuff I wanna know about.

When the world began, it was all grey ashes.

Then the flame appeared.

Then the Lords used the power of the flame to prosper.

Then the Lords vanished and the flame started to go out.

But then someone searched and killed all the Lords and used the power of their souls to kindle the flame again and the world was saved.

But then after some time it started to go out again. So the cycle repeated.

We're apparently at the last cycle now, and the flame is about to go out for good.
 

Berto

Member
Well I guess it's time to wrap it up all the games I'm currently playing. DS3 will consume all my time.
 

Ferr986

Member
This isn't a cycle. It's a fork in the road. You can kick the can or just say fuck it. That entire game constantly said the flames WILL fade. You're just delaying the inevitable. This isn't a cycle. A cycle is A then B then A ad nauseum. Not extend A or B.

This point is so plainly obvious to me that i was shocked more people accepted it at face value.

A cycle is a state of events that repeats over again. That's what exactly happens in dark Souls 1. It's just that in Dark 1 we are in the first loop.

any complete round or series of occurrences that repeats or is repeated.
2.
a round of years or a recurring period of time, especially one in which certain events or phenomena repeat themselves in the same order and at the same intervals.


About why delay the inevitable, you have to think that starting the age of dark may not be good for everyone depending on how you look into the world of Dark Souls, so it's fair to think that people would have motivations to keep the Age of Fire continuing, thus creating a cycle that repeats itself.
 

Adry9

Member
Any work on fast travel from the beginning? On DS2 it proved to be a solution for easier (
lazier
) level design.
 
Any work on fast travel from the beginning? On DS2 it proved to be a solution for easier (
lazier
) level design.

Demon's and Bloodborne had fast travel as well.

Also I think people are confusing world design, stuff that impacts maybe how immersed you are n stuff, with actual gameplay affecting level design. Fast traveling from the start in Dark Souls only serves to help me not waste my goddamn time.

People saying the Giant guy is a Giant from Dark Souls 2 need their eyes checked.

He's wearing chainmail armor with a crown. Thats not his face that has a hole in it, you just cant see it clearly. And even if you could it looks to be completely charred black.

I'm gonna keep this post saved for later lol. I see basically a void there, it's hard to tell if there is anything there at all either way. Guess I need my eyes checked!
 
Only three main robot masters?

Also the bell reviving the old lords of cinders is new.

The new herald is using a void dark crown, maybe to eat her humanit to the fueal the fire.

So the giant coffin on the off cam video is likely to be a tomb from a Lord of Cinder

I'm not arguing this. But it doesn't address my point. I KNEW this, and this is the problem. How is this possible? Why is the fragments' nature so VASTLY different from the manus we knew before? Why is the nature of the darkness (the force intrinsically tied to manus) not addressed, and completely sidelined?

How is saying "X is a fragment of Y" not simply a name-drop? Basically, what does Dark Souls 2 show that substantiates this relationship in any way other than just saying it is the case, given how vastly different the actual abilities and nature of Manus and the darkness?

This is my problem. it is a sequel in name only, and irrevocably harmed the lore.

Manus is supposed to awake his soul into a Dark Soul due constant torture and abuse from the Oolacile wardens, his mind was nearly broke when he remembered his lost love and transformed into the father of the abyss creating a pool or chasm of darkness in the process where he was able to reproduce humanity and slowly infect the entire oolacile with darkness.

He kidnapped Dusk thinking she was his love or she was really his lover is unknown, his emotion were greatly increased in his dark soul transformation basically he managed to create the hexes in the process attacking the user soul rather than physical.

Anyway you went to the past to stop him, kill him and get his soul, yet somehow in his defeat his soul fragmented in tiny pieces of his lost love (which later all his fragments took the form of females) and stayed in the chasm, slowly having conscience and became the childs of the dark in DkS2.

I also was concerned, Manus wasnt the only one, you can meet the darklurker and the pilgrims of the dark, the four kings, even the darkwraits yet DsK2 force the childs of the dark being part of him and being strongly direct about that breaking the vague lore they built in the game.

I'm gonna keep this post saved for later lol. I see basically a void there, it's hard to tell if there is anything there at all either way. Guess I need my eyes checked!

Looks like darkness covered face, his grunt sounds a lot of a giant anyway
 
Oh.. it was random... i'm not going to "get into it" but anyone who thinks dark souls 2 had even half of the intelligibility of dark souls 1 is deluding themselves.

Dark souls 2 lore videos are basically fan-fiction half the time "maybe x means y!"

For example. Who was Heide? Why are his nights across the land? Why does he have a tower of flame? Why is Orenstein there? I've platinumed this game, and i still can't tell you because none of it is explained by the heide items, or inferred by the knights locations in the game. They're just randomly strewn about. Even more-so in SOTFS.

We don't know if it was a who to begin with, the only things we know is that Heide could be a Kingdom, or the name of the land. Why is there a tower of flame? that's actually pretty easy, it's a lighthouse since that land used to be a city in the coast that was eventually engulfed by the sea. For the people who actually care about this things, many of us have theorized that that land is what remains of what used to be the Kingdom of Venn. In the lore they explained that during one of the cycles there were two kingdoms that were in war with each other. That's why in the remains of one of these kingdoms you find the covenant of the Blue Sentinels, while in the remains of the other you find the covenant of the Brotherhood of Blood, who are still in war with each other. As for why is Ornstein there, we don't know why, but since he was in the possession of a fragment of the soul of Lord Gwyn it is kind f justified that he would return.

"Scholar of the first sin" should instead read "summary of the first game" because that's basically all that character functions as.

There was never a "Cycle", it was just something DaS2 tacked on to justify the exact same game play formula. The primary antagonistic force of darkness became a side quest. Manus was a foot-note in Dark Souls 2 and it is never explained how he (and by extension, the darkness) went from some feral force of nature to some political scheming queen...somehow...

They established that burning yourself at the end of Dark Souls 1 did make the world to revive and decay over and over again. As I said, you may not like it, but that's what they went for and therefore they had to play with that rule in mind. They could've taken other routes and people would be complaining why they chose to make that other route canon, there's no point in arguing that. As for Manus, they explained that the fragments of Manus were aspects of humanity's true nature, That's why one of them (Alsanna) was basically not dangerous like the others, again, it wasn't just that "somehow" they became scheming queens. Also, you act as if not knowing the clear answer of one of your questions is a bad thing, but we don't know many things about the story of Dark Souls either, in the case of Manus and the Abyss, we don't even know what does the abyss is exactly, we don't know either what had to happen to Manus so he went from being a furtive pygmy to a giant monster, nor why he was obsessed with a pendant, for example.

Why were dragons alive and thriving when Gwyn had eliminated all of them? The Stone Dragon seems pretty insignificant, given the abundance of dragon related lore in 2.

There were dragons alive in DS1 too: Kalameet, the stone dragon, the Gaping Dragon... we even had undead dragons there. In DS2 Sinh is the only everlasting dragon of the bunch, the others are artificial dragons.

I could go on forever. DLC areas not withstanding. Dark Souls 2 had literally nothing to do with dark souls 1 except for a few name drops and the constant "OMG THIS COULD BE LORDRAN!" carrot dangled in the player's face in random dialogues.

For a counter example. Epic Name Bro correctly guessed the dark root garden was the ruins of Oolacile months before the DLC dropped merely through the location of NPC's and the nature of the enemies and items found in the area. In fact, the DLC would not have been even as remotely impactful if the main game didn't paint (what seemed to be) a very clear and distinct portrait of a consistent hero figure through item text peppered throughout the game. That's how good and intricate Dark Souls was. You couldn't infer anything even remotely as consistent in Dark Souls 2. Vaati himself even stopped doing lore videos in Dark 2 because of this problem.

Dark Souls 1 had intricate and obfuscated lore, but it was all within the game. Dark Souls 2 is obfuscated because it's just not present, and 1/2 the "lore" is just fan-fiction filling in the missing stuff.

The game had a troublesome development, no one can deny that, and that may be the reason why the connections that you and many others want to see are probably absent, but they were pretty consistent when it comes to establish that Drangleic was just another kingdom that rose and fell because of a cycle of the age of fire.If you paid attention, in the DLC they actually explained how Drangleic came to be, of course, many things were left without explanation but as I said earlier that happened in DS and Demon's too so it's probably the real nature of these games.

Also, Vaati covered all the lore of DSII with his videos, including all the DLC so, I don't think that the obtuse nature of DS2's lore stopped him, heck! he even made already a DS III lore video with nothing more than speculations.
 
Top Bottom