Support NeoGAF

[CenturionKei]

I think people are often thinking "Age of Dark=Good Age of Fire: Bad" To see how wrong that view is, just look at Artorias Of The Abyss. Thats what the dark age looks like. Also Manus is a being of pure darkness and humanity. He who is the most depraved character in the game. In contrast to Gywn, who is flawed, yet potrayed heroicly.

It really dossnt matter anyway. According to Aldria were fucked regardless

 

[Gbraga]

I think people are often thinking "Age of Dark=Good Age of Fire: Bad" To see how wrong that view is, just look at Artorias Of The Abyss. Thats what the dark age looks like. Also Manus is a being of pure darkness and humanity. He who is the most depraved character in the game. In contrast to Gywn, who is flawed, yet potrayed heroicly.

It really dossnt matter anyway. According to Aldria were fucked regardless

It's not about good or bad, it's just that the age of dark is the inevitable course of nature. It doesn't matter if it's better or worse.

It doesn't matter if you think 2017 will be better or worse than 2016, it will still come, it's inevitable, that's how it works.

And fuck Aldia, fucking shoulder bullshit wasting my time at bonfires, what a terrible addition to the game. Scholar of the First Sin was a mistake, it's nothing but trash.

 

[DoubleTake]

But that's the thing, they absolutely didn't! If Dark is inevitable, have the sequel take place during the Age of Dark, and both endings could work. It's not that they had to choose one, they just didn't get Dark Souls, which is kind of insane.

They didn't even give you a choice in Dark Souls II's ending, just showing how it didn't matter to them. Only with the Scholar patch that they retconned it into the game (likely because Dark III was already in production at that point, and they needed to make it work), but still in a weird manner. You choose to find another solution to the curse, it says nothing about the Age of Dark, because it's irrelevant to them.

Dark Souls III comes, and undead are still a thing, the focus is all on the end of fire and the lords of cinder again, it really shows how they're completely different takes on that world.

It's not even a case of "fucking B Team can't write as well as my husbando Miyazaki", it's not acceptable that they let the games contradict each other like this, they said Miyazaki was consulting in Dark Souls II, but it kinda sounds like he did fucking nothing while they were writing the story for the sequel.

Keep speaking the truth.

"Consulting" yeah lol. Im pretty sure theres an old interview from 2012 that has Miyazaki saying something about being very hand off with Shibuya and letting him do his own thing. I find it really hard to take much of Dark Souls 2s lore additions seriously, especially with what we know of its development.

 

[Ferr986]

But that's the thing, they absolutely didn't! If Dark is inevitable, have the sequel take place during the Age of Dark, and both endings could work. It's not that they had to choose one, they just didn't get Dark Souls, which is kind of insane.

They didn't even give you a choice in Dark Souls II's ending, just showing how it didn't matter to them. Only with the Scholar patch that they retconned it into the game (likely because Dark III was already in production at that point, and they needed to make it work), but still in a weird manner. You choose to find another solution to the curse, it says nothing about the Age of Dark, because it's irrelevant to them.

Dark Souls III comes, and undead are still a thing, the focus is all on the end of fire and the lords of cinder again, it really shows how they're completely different takes on that world.

It's not even a case of "fucking B Team can't write as well as my husbando Miyazaki", it's not acceptable that they let the games contradict each other like this, they said Miyazaki was consulting in Dark Souls II, but it kinda sounds like he did fucking nothing while they were writing the story for the sequel.

But it's no different with Dark 3. They could have made it happen in the Age of Dark, but at the end, they chose to place it still in the age of fire, because you still have a goal (either age of fire and dark).

Thing is, dark isn't inevitable, is the natural course, yeah, but you can keep avoiding it. Hell, they even go as far in Dark 3 as making the auto bell lord awakening when the fire is about to fade, something that is completely new, and is another panic button to avoid the age of dark (not that I dislike it).

I agree the original dark 2 ending was shit, like REALLY SHIT. And also that the lore is inferior.

Btw, I don't understand SOTFS ending about looking for a solution of the curse. Aldia says "there's no path. Beyond the scope of light and beyond the reach of dark, what could await us?" I think it's another way to say to go for the age of dark. And yes,I agree it was a retcon lol As I said the ending of 2 was terrible.

It's not about good or bad, it's just that the age of dark is the inevitable course of nature. It doesn't matter if it's better or worse.

It doesn't matter if you think 2017 will be better or worse than 2016, it will still come, it's inevitable, that's how it works.

Not if you have a way to go back to 2016 just before reaching 2017

 

[twozerotwo]

Looks like the prices on CDJap and PlayAsia are about the same.

Anyone pre-ordered off either one and did you get your game on time?

 

[zma1013]

I think people are often thinking "Age of Dark=Good Age of Fire: Bad" To see how wrong that view is, just look at Artorias Of The Abyss. Thats what the dark age looks like. Also Manus is a being of pure darkness and humanity. He who is the most depraved character in the game. In contrast to Gywn, who is flawed, yet potrayed heroicly.

It really dossnt matter anyway. According to Aldria were fucked regardless

I felt like the Age of Dark was kinda from their viewpoints and it's looked at as a bad thing in their eyes because they wither and die away and man now takes over. Manus and the humanity, even if we see it in a more physical sense, is a representation of man consuming or eroding all that which came before it. Of course from Gwyn's view, the age of Dark is bad because it means his end and everything he's built.

Also gotta ask, Is Manus the most depraved? There's a lot of messed up beings in this world.

 

[SargerusBR]

You guys wanting the Chosen Undead to return... I fear a fully powered, full-crowned Bearer of the Curse. THAT would be so cool.

My theory is that

Spoiler

the Unkindled are descendents of the Bearer of the Curse, or at least inherited his/her power to nullify hollowing.

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

In hindsight, Nito was the least depraved lord soul.

He just sleeps in a coffin, has a covenant, and rewards followers. In the undead crypt, the mission was to guard the sleep of the undead inside, the milfanito's singing was to soothe the pain of the undead. Then the rotten, a being that gave "sanctuary" to those unwanted, got his lord soul.

 

[Gbraga]

But it's no different with Dark 3. They could have made it happen in the Age of Dark, but at the end, they chose to place it still in the age of fire, because you still have a goal (either age of fire and dark).

Because they're not ignoring Dark Souls II, which would be way worse. No matter how bad it is, it absolutely is Dark Souls canon, they can't pretend it didn't exist. If Dark Souls II says it's a cycle, then they need to explain it very thoroughly now if they want to put the Age of Dark in, with a point of no return.

And that could very well be what they're doing with the lords abandoning their thrones. If their existance and rising when the flames are at risk is what keeps the cycle going, if they're not there anymore, this time it can end for good.

Thing is, dark isn't inevitable, is the natural course, yeah, but you can keep avoiding it. Hell, they even go as far in Dark 3 as making the auto bell lord awakening when the fire is about to fade, something that is completely new, and is another panic button to avoid the age of dark (not that I dislike it).

Yes, this is true. As long as they keep linking the fire, the age of fire will continue. I fail to see a reason after the gods are no more, but Dark Souls III might also be addressing that point, as we can see with the figure of Ludleth of Courland, "a self proclaimed Lord of Cinder". If being a Lord of Cinder is something that can be considered desirable, it might explain why they kept linking it.

I agree the original dark 2 ending was shit, like REALLY SHIT. And also that the lore is inferior.

Btw, I don't understand SOTFS ending about looking for a solution of the curse. Aldia says "there's no path. Beyond the scope of light and beyond the reach of dark, what could await us?" I think it's another way to say to go for the age of dark. And yes,I agree it was a retcon lol As I said the ending of 2 was terrible.

And I mean, don't get me wrong, when I say retcon, I don't mean anything bad by it, not on principle, at least, the issue is that it makes no sense. It's like they didn't know people cared about this, and then patched it because someone told them we kinda do care about it. It can't be their vision, because they actually went against the tradition, they went out of their way changing the formula and giving us a single ending.

BUT, that being said, it could be a result of its very troubled development. On the other hand, Demon's had a similar troubled development, and was redone from scratch by Miyazaki after being considered a failure. I personally don't like Demon's nearly as much as Dark, so the troubled development is still just as good of an argument to me, but there are many people who still think Demon's is the best Souls game, so it might not be enough reason to justify its shortcomings.

Not if you have a way to go back to 2016 just before reaching 2017

But you can't, you can make 2016 last longer, but 2017 is still there, it will still come, it's only a matter of time. And when it does, RIP 2016.

RIP in RIP

in RIP.

Even Dark Souls III reinforces that Dark II considered Fire and Dark a cycle, they added the option to not link the fire to Dark Souls II, but we're still in the age of fire in Dark Souls III. They could've just chosen the Link the Fire ending from I to write II, as you suggested, but it makes no sense that they would patch in an ending that they were already discarding, since Dark Souls III was most definitely already in development at that point.

 

[Lux R7]

In hindsight, Nito was the least depraved lord soul.

He just sleeps in a coffin, has a covenant, and rewards followers. In the undead crypt, the mission was to guard the sleep of the undead inside, the milfanito's singing was to soothe the pain of the undead. Then the rotten, a being that gave "sanctuary" to those unwanted, got his lord soul.

Spoiler

yep, Nito was a good guy. The only reason we kill him is for the lord soul.

 

[Iva Demilcol]

But that's the thing, they absolutely didn't! If Dark is inevitable, have the sequel take place during the Age of Dark, and both endings could work. It's not that they had to choose one, they just didn't get Dark Souls, which is kind of insane.

They didn't even give you a choice in Dark Souls II's ending, just showing how it didn't matter to them. Only with the Scholar patch that they retconned it into the game (likely because Dark III was already in production at that point, and they needed to make it work), but still in a weird manner. You choose to find another solution to the curse, it says nothing about the Age of Dark, because it's irrelevant to them.

Dark Souls III comes, and undead are still a thing, the focus is all on the end of fire and the lords of cinder again, it really shows how they're completely different takes on that world.

It's not even a case of "fucking B Team can't write as well as my husbando Miyazaki", it's not acceptable that they let the games contradict each other like this, they said Miyazaki was consulting in Dark Souls II, but it kinda sounds like he did fucking nothing while they were writing the story for the sequel.

Alternatively, he actually approved the story of DSII and he may think is cool enough so he is taking a lot of DSII's elements into account for all we've seen so far.

Shocking, I know.

In other things, I wrote this on another thread: there are five thrones because in all the games there are 5 beings kind of responsible for what is happening in the world: Lord Gwyn, Nito, The witch of Izalith, Seath and Manus, in DSII you have: The old Iron king, The rotten, The lost sinner, Freja and Nashandra/Elana/Nadalia/Alsanna.

 

[Mr. Poolman]

My theory is that

Spoiler

the Unkindled are descendents of the Bearer of the Curse, or at least inherited his/her power to nullify hollowing.

That would be awesome.

Also, Vendrick spills all the beans in the Crowns Saga:

 

[Gbraga]

Not to mention Nito's sick ass raves.

Alternatively, he actually approved the story of DSII and he may think is cool enough so he is taking a lot of DSII's elements into account for all we've seen so far.

Shocking, I know.

He can think it's cool all he wants, but he should at least make sure it's consistent with his world.

In other things, I wrote this on another thread: there are five thrones because in all the games there are 5 beings kind of responsible for what is happening in the world: Lord Gwyn, Nito, The witch of Izalith, Seath and Manus, in DSII you have: The old Iron king, The rotten, The lost sinner, Freja and Nashandra/Elana/Nadalia/Alsanna.

What I'm eager to see is if the other Lords of Cinder recognize Ludleth as an equal, things might not look too good for him once another Lord takes his throne there.

 

[Adry9]

It has fast travel from the beginning. Although it doesn't mean much, Bloodborne also had fast travel.

Haven't played Bloodborne but I guess they did a better job with that.

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.

I meant both. Dark Souls 1 had a good level design, plus, it made sense in that world. Dark Souls 2 was awful in that aspect.

 

[Skab]

Haven't played Bloodborne but I guess they did a better job with that.

In BB, you have to go back to the hub before being able to go anywhere else, unlike DS2 where you can just go anywhere from anywhere.

 

[Gbraga]

Haven't played Bloodborne but I guess they did a better job with that.

Yeah, absolutely. I was definitely scared about the level design when they announced Bloodborne would also have the same kind of warping as Dark Souls II, but it's great. I'm not worried about Dark Souls III's level design at all.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I don't think I want to watch this yet.

I know I won't be able to hold out for long though

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Jesus, the story presentation in these games is such derivative, cookie cutter, fantasy bilge:

"And so the old ones will rise, and dosteth the journey of the forsaken *something something*, and lo, thou shall perish in the flames of *blah blah blah*, and the drown in the blood of accursed *drivel drivel*..."

It literally seemed like a parody.

 

[finalflame]

Jesus, the story presentation in these games is such derivative, cookie cutter, fantasy bilge:

"And so the old ones will rise, and dosteth the journey of the forsaken *something something*, and lo, thou shall perish in the flames of *blah blah blah*, and the drown in the blood of accursed *drivel drivel*..."

It literally seemed like a parody.

Have you played the games? The lore and storytelling is anything but cookie-cutter. The cinematic and monologue make perfect sense in the context of the universe and larger lore.

 

[Lux R7]

Jesus, the story presentation in these games is such derivative, cookie cutter, fantasy bilge:

"And so the old ones will rise, and dosteth the journey of the forsaken *something something*, and lo, thou shall perish in the flames of *blah blah blah*, and the drown in the blood of accursed *drivel drivel*..."

It literally seemed like a parody.

yeah, no.

 

[DoubleTake]

Jesus, the story presentation in these games is such derivative, cookie cutter, fantasy bilge:

"And so the old ones will rise, and dosteth the journey of the forsaken *something something*, and lo, thou shall perish in the flames of *blah blah blah*, and the drown in the blood of accursed *drivel drivel*..."

It literally seemed like a parody.

So what youre saying is you have absolutely no idea whats going on or what youre talking about.

 

[zma1013]

Jesus, the story presentation in these games is such derivative, cookie cutter, fantasy bilge:

"And so the old ones will rise, and dosteth the journey of the forsaken *something something*, and lo, thou shall perish in the flames of *blah blah blah*, and the drown in the blood of accursed *drivel drivel*..."

It literally seemed like a parody.

It's like the opposite of what you said though. The opposite of cookie cutter. It sounds like you hear them saying words yet don't want to listen.

In regards to the series as a whole that is. Sure just watching this trailer on it's own probably just sounds like random babble but the story of Dark Souls isn't that.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Have you played the games? The lore and storytelling is anything but cookie-cutter. The cinematic and monologue make perfect sense in the context of the universe and larger lore.

Yes, I've played Demon's Souls, both Dark Souls and Bloodborne for over 50 hours each. I enjoy them until I get stuck and frustrated, but the stories have never engaged me. It's all so bland and tedious.

 

[DoubleTake]

Yes, I've played Demon's Souls, both Dark Souls and Bloodborne for over 50 hours each. I enjoy them until I get stuck and frustrated, but the stories have never engaged me. It's all so bland and tedious.

Tedious because you dont want to take the time to understand it and bland because you dont know whats going on, right?

 

[Lux R7]

Ok there is something weird here. I mean in the trailer. Do you guys think that the knight at the end (the same on the boxart) is our character? Because that would be really strange, i mean i don't think it's usual for them to give your character a particular appearence in the cinematic intro. I mean, on the boxart it's ok, no doubt, but in the intro? No..there is something missing here.

 

[Adry9]

In BB, you have to go back to the hub before being able to go anywhere else, unlike DS2 where you can just go anywhere from anywhere.

Yeah, absolutely. I was definitely scared about the level design when they announced Bloodborne would also have the same kind of warping as Dark Souls II, but it's great. I'm not worried about Dark Souls III's level design at all.

This makes me more optimistic. I'm still not sure whether to pre-order since I got DS2 on day 1 and I was really dissapointed with it.

 

[The Lamp]

Jesus, the story presentation in these games is such derivative, cookie cutter, fantasy bilge:

"And so the old ones will rise, and dosteth the journey of the forsaken *something something*, and lo, thou shall perish in the flames of *blah blah blah*, and the drown in the blood of accursed *drivel drivel*..."

It literally seemed like a parody.

I totally get what you're saying. It sounds generic.

But I don't really see how else they're supposed to narrate the story lol.

 

[TheOctodad]

Yes, I've played Demon's Souls, both Dark Souls and Bloodborne for over 50 hours each. I enjoy them until I get stuck and frustrated, but the stories have never engaged me. It's all so bland and tedious.

Bland? No.

Tedious? I'll give you that. It definitely takes some digging and reading.

 

[WhiskerFrisker]

Yes, I've played Demon's Souls, both Dark Souls and Bloodborne for over 50 hours each. I enjoy them until I get stuck and frustrated, but the stories have never engaged me. It's all so bland and tedious.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

Bland? No.

Tedious? I'll give you that. It definitely takes some digging and reading.

I don't find an investment on the player's part tedious at all. I welcome it in an industry full of bloated in your face storytelling.

The way Soulsborne interwines narrative and system is wonderful.

 

[Manu]

Jesus, the story presentation in these games is such derivative, cookie cutter, fantasy bilge:

"And so the old ones will rise, and dosteth the journey of the forsaken *something something*, and lo, thou shall perish in the flames of *blah blah blah*, and the drown in the blood of accursed *drivel drivel*..."

It literally seemed like a parody.

Well, one of the strenghts of Dark Souls is taking the totally overused and cliché medieval classic fantasy setting and doing something interesting with it.

Of course it's gonna feel generic if you don't look beyond that first impression.

I'm surprised you feel like that even after having finished the games, though.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Tedious because you dont want to take the time to understand it and bland because you dont know whats going on, right?

Tedious because I have no reason to care about anything that's going on, there is no human connection, no relatable conflict.

It's just some seemingly regurgitated gothic fantasy drivel about old ones and curses and stuff.

Bland because it's some gothic fantasy drivel about old ones and curses and stuff.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Jesus, the story presentation in these games is such derivative, cookie cutter, fantasy bilge:

"And so the old ones will rise, and dosteth the journey of the forsaken *something something*, and lo, thou shall perish in the flames of *blah blah blah*, and the drown in the blood of accursed *drivel drivel*..."

It literally seemed like a parody.

Bloodborne was like a breath of fresh air for me, I felt this way after playing Dark Souls 2.

 

[Astral Dog]

The giant looks like the Witch King of Angmar.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Yes, I've played Demon's Souls, both Dark Souls and Bloodborne for over 50 hours each. I enjoy them until I get stuck and frustrated, but the stories have never engaged me. It's all so bland and tedious.

I'd say that Souls games offers another type of storytelling. I guess if you want dozens of characters interacting with hours of dialogue with your character and deep, intrincate politcs in a medival setting, aka Witcher 3, yeah I can see the game not being up to your taste.

But I would say that:

1) Is not really bland, if you dig into the game you can see some very interesting concepts, specially BB, I wouldn't call "bland" a game the mixes victorian horror setting with Lovecraft.

2) Tedious? If there's a game that easily let's you cast aside most story elements is Souls game, there's are barely cutscenes and most of them just show you the next boss, NPC interactions are mostly irrelevant, you can actually avoid most of them if you wish so. At the same time, you can just never read item descriptions.

You can basically end the game with no idea of what was your objective (yes, you might need to listen to a couple of NPC to understand where you should go, but even so, you can actually find the way on your own with enough exploration). The game barely asks you to concentrate on the story or the lore building elements on the world. You can just focus on the game with barely any real interruption, how is that tedious?

 

[Nere]

Tedious because I have no reason to care about anything that's going on, there is no human connection, no relatable conflict.

It's just some seemingly regurgitated gothic fantasy drivel about old ones and curses and stuff.

Bland because it's some gothic fantasy drivel about old ones and curses and stuff.

Judging by your post history you have went on a crusade of hating all the souls games. Why don't you accept the series isn't for you and put it down and move to something else? It surprises me that you are forcing down your throat games which you find bland, uninteresting, unbalanced e.t.c.

 

[zma1013]

Tedious because I have no reason to care about anything that's going on, there is no human connection, no relatable conflict.

It's just some seemingly regurgitated gothic fantasy drivel about old ones and curses and stuff.

Bland because it's some gothic fantasy drivel about old ones and curses and stuff.

Beings striving for power, relevance, and purpose is what humans are all about. Perhaps there's no direct immediate connection like a man searching for his family or something rather typical and standard like that, but there are certainly relateable themes and storylines in the games.

 

[Astral Dog]

JUST MAKE A BERSERK GAME ALREADY

Why do you want a Berserk game when they can actually finish the superior bloodSOULS story?

 

[Orochinagis]

It's not about good or bad, it's just that the age of dark is the inevitable course of nature. It doesn't matter if it's better or worse.

It doesn't matter if you think 2017 will be better or worse than 2016, it will still come, it's inevitable, that's how it works.

And fuck Aldia, fucking shoulder bullshit wasting my time at bonfires, what a terrible addition to the game. Scholar of the First Sin was a mistake, it's nothing but trash.

Let me repraise you the same lore you heard but you will not understand since the first game with fire and flames....and.....cinders

 

[SargerusBR]

I never understood how people disliked the use of the cycle theme in DS2 yet "time is convoluted" and alternate dimensions from DS1 were never criticized.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

I never understood how people disliked the use of the cycle theme in DS2 yet "time is convoluted" and alternate dimensions from DS1 were never criticized.

I kinda agree with that.

 

[Mister Wolf]

Tedious because I have no reason to care about anything that's going on, there is no human connection, no relatable conflict.

It's just some seemingly regurgitated gothic fantasy drivel about old ones and curses and stuff.

Bland because it's some gothic fantasy drivel about old ones and curses and stuff.

I respect your honesty. The Souls games including Bloodborne have horrible storytelling

 

[Nere]

I respect your honesty. The Souls games including Bloodborne have horrible storytelling

Just because it isn't presented like other games with cutscenes doesn't mean it is horrible.

 

[Mister Wolf]

Why do you want a Berserk game when they can actually finish the superior bloodSOULS story?

Bloodborne superior to Berserk? Even Miyazaki would laugh at that ridiculous statement.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

I respect your honesty. The Souls games including Bloodborne have horrible storytelling

No, it's some of the best in gaming.

Videogame journalist Rich Stanton says it well:

Hidetaka Miyazaki and From Software have an outstanding approach to narrative design, creating worlds where the systems and lore are intertwined from first principles. These are not games with simple stories, easy answers, or even good and bad - which is why fans find their heady brew of fact, myth, and suggestion so intoxicating.

 

[CenturionKei]

I respect your honesty. The Souls games including Bloodborne have horrible storytelling

Lol no.

As an H.P Lovecraft and Poe fan. The soul series have some of the best storytelling in gaming. I dont care if its standard gothic horror. I love Gothic horror.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Uldritch, Saint of the Deep

Farron's Undead Legion, The Abyss Watchers

Reclusive lord of the profaned capital, Hyuong The Giant

Three? Only three? That can't be right.

Also Uldritch is definitely related to those mass of black thing bursting out of the Undead.

 

[Lux R7]

Lol no.

As an H.P Lovecraft and Poe fan. The soul series have some of the best storytelling in gaming. I dont care if its standard gothic horror. I love Gothic horror.

perfect post.

 

[The Xtortionist]

I hope the Chosen Undead shows up in some capacity, would be incredible.

Only if it's Giant Dad.

 

[strafer]

I wanna see Velstadth again! and Raime!

Velstadth and Raime dual bossfight a la Ornstein and Smogg