Iva Demilcol
Member
it's not "another fire", there are many tiny flames... many! D:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Dark Souls 3 Story and Lore Discussion [Unmarked Spoilers]
- Thread starter GorillaJu
- Start date
Orochinagis
Member
Thats how the first age started there is another flame that became too chaotic in the Ivory King DLC
Jathaine
Member
I choose to believe that Yorshka may be Priscilla. I'm not fully convinced of it, but given that Prissy seemed to be treated like a 'mistake' and locked away... I can't see someone going and doing the exact same thing.
I'm also not too sure Aldritch 'ate' Priscilla either. I noticed that he doesn't have a physical manifestation of the lifehunt scythe and the player doesn't get one from the soul either. Instead, this time it is a dark miracle. Mayhaps that's a hint at the nature of how he obtained the power?
Perhaps simply seeing a vision of it through Gwyndolin's dreams, he was able to craft a spell version of it? I mean, he has devoured godlike powers at this point. I don't see why not.
I feel very much the same. It's why I'm not aaaas super into the lore of Dark Souls 3 as I was 2 or BB. Two was mostly because I really really liked the daughters of the abyss angle, and thought Vendrick and Aldia were really cool. Everything else was give or take.
But Dark Souls 3 just feels like a retread of all the very well worn themes without much resolution or additional complexities. And that's on top of not really feeling like it adds much of its own "lore" and rather just closing Dark Souls 1 storylines off.
Bloodborne was super fresh and interesting because of this. New lore, new themes, new everything.
Iva Demilcol
Member
We don't know how the first flame came to be, but that other fire is the flame of Chaos from the First Dark Souls.
I think it's implied he didn't eat Priscilla, just mimicked what he saw. I don't think Yorshka is Priscilla, but I could be wrong. They look just different enough to me to make me think they are different.
Orochinagis
Member
Like the Force Awakens, at least Dark Souls 2 tried to be far, far away from Dark Souls 1 but Dark Souls 3 just plastered Dark Soul 1 was like a week ago with different NPC being the same NPCs
The whole church back story and the Great ones story was refreshing but it was basically a Lovecraft story retold by Miyazaki.
Started as tiny flames then became a huge fire. I think is a different fire just found a way out below the castle but of course FROM needed to link it to DS1 and put "Chaos" on it.
Honestly, I just view the choice as "what would I do". I mean, it's cool that the Age of Dark is inevitable and all of that, but I wouldn't want to live there. It's like giving you a choice to delay your own death, of course I would take it.
I know the Age of Fire has it's problems. I mean, whatever you do, there will be a bad side in Dark Souls world.
Yes, I agree with this, although I can't believe Aldia is nowhere to be seen. It makes no sense to me.
I understand the tiny flames are basically us. Like, even in full darkness, we will be there living.
Iva Demilcol
Member
All I see in the intro is a great fire not really tiny flames that become a fire. I think we will never know for certain how the first flame came to be. But what is actually stated after you decide to extinguish the flame is that the fire keeper senses tiny flames, from them you only can imagine what happens next.
And since it'll be pointless to have two or more endings that are pretty much the same, I think the implication is that those flames will one day sustain the world of Dark Souls. Therefore we won again our happy ending.
Edit: and yes, I agree that the tiny flames within the dark are us.
Orochinagis
Member
So little flames for everyone
Iva Demilcol
Member
That's the only thing that helps me sleep at night.
GwyndolinCinder
Member
Yup whilst i dont like how they told the story in 2 (ie makes no sense without dlc), its great now. sisters of abyss is cool af.
N
Noray
Unconfirmed Member
Catching up on this thread, this is a nice write-up. The one thing that really stood out to me and made me feel stupid for not coming up with it is that Dark Firelink Shrine is from an age where the fire has gone out already. If true (or if you believe it rather), this also lends credence to the theory that Irina's grand betrayal was actually allowing the fire to die. There are plenty of holes in this theory, but it's Dark Souls so there are holes in almost every theory. The one thing I don't like about it is that it implies Dark Firelink Shrine is its own "pocket" separate from the rest of the world it's connected to. Alternatively, the fire has already faded in the game, which may explain why the sun seems to be dying or doing whatever it's doing - it's on its last legs.
I mean i don't like a lot of things of DaS2 that 3 does better (mainly mechanics, level design and such. Everything about the core gameplay element is better). But one of souls 2 problems was that there was quite a lot of pandering, which shifted a bit away with DLC and scholar. But DaS3 does even MORE pandering. It really is like The Force Awakens: It's excellently made but it's basically the same story retold with new bells and whistles and a couple of new elements that don't really bring new elements that progress the story, but rather retcon stuff from 2 and a bit of 1. It's incredibly frustrating, as much as I enjoyed playing 3. Because it's the last Souls and I really expected the story to go at least somewhere
Orochinagis
Member
Maybe Dark Souls 2 is a what if the Fire was relinked and Dark Souls 3 is what if The age of Darkness was allowed. Damm you Legend of Zelda
LegalEagleMike
Member
I've been meaning to work on parrying. This many games in and I have never really used it. Then I watch ENB get murdered by that black knight and I am content with just going for backstabs.
Also I still cant believe he thinks Yoel of Londor is just an alternative fire keeper lol.
Also I still cant believe he thinks Yoel of Londor is just an alternative fire keeper lol.
N
Noray
Unconfirmed Member
Dark Souls 2 has seen many, many ages. Straid says this directly. Kingdoms have risen and fallen, flames may die but one day relight (much like the Firekeepers lines in DS3). DS2 considered both endings in DS1 canon because it didn't matter due to the cyclical nature of the world.
I also wonder if people would've been less harsh on DS2's world design if it had been as overt as DS3 about how "murky" the nature of Drangleic is. People took that game waaaaay too literally, I thought it was batshit insane in the most awesome way when I took that elevator up and got to Iron Keep. The dreamlike nature of DS2 was awesome. I mean your character falls through the fucking looking glass (vortex) in the beginning of that game, shit is NOT all right. I think people missed the point of that game's elegiac, dreamlike tone completely, but that's just my personal preference.
I do think Dark Souls 1 did the best job overall of keeping things vague while presenting the player with a clear purpose and origin and laying out the broad beats of the story very clearly, something that Fromsoft hasn't repeated in any of its Soulsbornes since. It struck the best balance between directness and elision. They've overshot the mark a bit since then I fear.
Riposte
Member
I was waiting for someone to propose a split timeline (worlds?), it's been on my mind since I saw nations from 1 and 2 and trying to make sense of it. I am not quite what to say about it though.
It contradicts the Firelink of the past (or is that just a vision?), but the fact that Anor Londo and a divine bloodline was able to endure so long and the idea of cycles is looked at in DSIII more as a possibility (with people who linked the fire being central characters/bossses) rather than how focused DSII is on it being the current state of things, makes me think it's DSII that had an Age of Dark or at least a more turbulent succession.
This idea is also predicted on the idea all of the nations survived longer, that some of the new ones still came in being naturally, and that Vendrick never succeeded in making Drangleic with Nashandra (he was instead a pretender King of Want and his Drang knights disbanded).
It's not particularly viable, but it's hard for me to banish the thought completely. Things get weird when you consider how weird Drangleic is (e.g., DSII's opening) to begin with. What if these two timelines are interacting in the form of invasions and such?
EDIT: Soulsborne is the dumbest term. Everyone knows Bloodborne is a Souls game.
Honestly I really don't like the actual use of "time travel" or multiverse to justify vagueness in any story or trying to make sense of chronological order, since it's such lazy handwaveyness.
In Souls 1, the notion of "time is convoluted" was mostly justified for you to summon phantoms from ages past who tried before you and supposedly fail at a later point (hence why you find usually corpses of a lot of NPCS summons). I don't think it's meant to be "hard science" of Souls that "Time travel is a thing", more like something with a poetic license. But Lordran, the place, was still a tangible one that had a golden age, a beginning and an end and what made dark souls 1's plot kinda gripping is that, at the time, Lordran and it's world was "it". There wasn't supposed to be an after so the weight of this coming entropy, end of world was even heavier.
But now we've got entire shifting worlds, people resurfacing from lands supposedly long gone like Astora. And it's even implied that whatever you do the cycle doesn't care and the flame will come and go kinda as it pleases and what kind of hot dogs Greirat is selling that day. While it does make for cool imagery it does undermine the previous entries quite a bit and your whole quest in the process. Especially one that we're now doing for the third and supposedly last time
In Souls 1, the notion of "time is convoluted" was mostly justified for you to summon phantoms from ages past who tried before you and supposedly fail at a later point (hence why you find usually corpses of a lot of NPCS summons). I don't think it's meant to be "hard science" of Souls that "Time travel is a thing", more like something with a poetic license. But Lordran, the place, was still a tangible one that had a golden age, a beginning and an end and what made dark souls 1's plot kinda gripping is that, at the time, Lordran and it's world was "it". There wasn't supposed to be an after so the weight of this coming entropy, end of world was even heavier.
But now we've got entire shifting worlds, people resurfacing from lands supposedly long gone like Astora. And it's even implied that whatever you do the cycle doesn't care and the flame will come and go kinda as it pleases and what kind of hot dogs Greirat is selling that day. While it does make for cool imagery it does undermine the previous entries quite a bit and your whole quest in the process. Especially one that we're now doing for the third and supposedly last time
Are we seriously starting to entertain theories about split timelines? Stuff like this is only going to derail lore discussions, not help them. I also think people are starting to forget the fact that despite a few perceived inconsistencies, most of the stuff in DS3 is fairly consistent with what we know from past games.
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
Why does Anri attack you at the end of her storyline?
And did anyone else look at the dead body of Greirat huddled into the corner dead in The sewers and just have an epiphany moment. Just staring at his dead corpse...thinking...what's the point of all this? Like, fire or no fire, we all just end up dead in the corner, lost, forgotten, with nobody giving a shit about you outside whatever person loots from your dead body. Without knowing Greirat, his corpse looks like k be of a regular Thrall enemy .I don't know, Greirats death put everything in perspective for me in regards the the dark souls lore.
And did anyone else look at the dead body of Greirat huddled into the corner dead in The sewers and just have an epiphany moment. Just staring at his dead corpse...thinking...what's the point of all this? Like, fire or no fire, we all just end up dead in the corner, lost, forgotten, with nobody giving a shit about you outside whatever person loots from your dead body. Without knowing Greirat, his corpse looks like k be of a regular Thrall enemy .I don't know, Greirats death put everything in perspective for me in regards the the dark souls lore.
Think of the hundreds of greirat you killed on your way there who were just looking to scavenge some stuff :^)
Also Anri attacks you I think if you tell them at any moment about the fate of Horace. They go crazy if I recall due to grief
LegalEagleMike
Member
I would assume she is hollow. She has achieved her goal, nothing left to live for.
Where does that "Irina's betrayal" thing come from?
GwyndolinCinder
Member
Catchin up on ENBs series, got so said for him when seeing velka. Hopefully he'll be able to put something together.
What happened?
Speaking of ENB, I kind of feel bad for him. He sort of went off on Twitter the other day because he seems to be getting a lot of crap for his blind DS3 playthrough and his impressions (I take it he's not a fan?). Blind Souls playthroughs aren't for me so I haven't kept up, but I really hope he finishes soon since I want to hear his thoughts on the lore.
LegalEagleMike
Member
He likes the game he just hopes that all these overt dark souls 1 references actually tie into the lore and are not just fan service.
He's at 10 episodes of 40-45mins each and still at the road of sacrifices, so it's likely gonna take a while.
(S)he thinks you killed him. Well, you did, because he went mad, but (s)he doesn't know that.
Some had the impression he "hates" the game because of some of his live impressions. He clarified in a youtube comment he does not, he enjoys it quite a lot. But he does find there's a lot of souls 1 pandering in it that he wasn't a fan of and he pointed out quite a bit in some of the videos. And since some people stupidly take him as the "gold standard" for souls opinion, like Vaati or German, he falls under a lot of pressure from fans
GwyndolinCinder
Member
Couple of interesting things
- Velka statue then rhea mentions the gods above.
- Rhea was trying to get the rite of kindling . Irina trying to become firekeeper
- Velka statue then rhea mentions the gods above.
- Rhea was trying to get the rite of kindling . Irina trying to become firekeeper
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
I remember reading an item description that said Aldrich - while consuming Gwyndolin, dreamt he was a pale woman locked away in a tower. Wouldn't that mean Vashka is The manifestation of Aldrich's dream? It also gives meaning as to why there is invisible ground leading to her which seemed so random. As if you were transitioning to his dream.
Well just a reference from the New Londo (which I'm guessing is what Londor is, or what remains of) and serpents being in leagues with the darkwraith.
I'm really really sad we didn't get anything about the serpents. Maybe in a DLC
Probably the most common theory is that he dreamt about Priscilla, cause that info comes from the Scythe sorcery, and Priscilla's weapon was a Scythe.
Not farfetched that Gwyndolin knew about Priscilla, considering she was trapped in a painting inside Anor Londo.
The invisible ground... I just take it as a yet another node to Dark 1 (invisible paths on crystal cave)
EDIT: Also, the description doesn't talk about a tower.
Yuria mentions Kaathe if you kill her.
Descrip. says nothing about the tower.
- It's either Priscilla, he has Lifehunt Scythe spell in the boss fight.
- The woman "inside" Gwyndolin that is in hiding. (more likely the former).
(Since Anri is female in my game, mind that I will use female pronouns.)
I figure that she, like Horace (who hollowed sooner), hollowed after you kill "her" Aldrich since she's been running from/after him for her whole life and purpose. Once you kill him and (if you include her "dark" quest line) given the fact that she's hollowing to begin with, she completely goes hollow now that she's lost her purpose.
She's basically in Lucatiel's shoes from DS2, by the end she hollows too. Just Lucatiel was infinitely better delivered and infinitely more poignant... something I could say about a lot of the DS1/2 lore relative to DS3.
Orochinagis
Member
Yes, once the undead lost the will to live or fulfill their goal the Hollowing grows instantly on them, shame on them
I always had the idea Dark Souls 2 fire and elements are in another timeline or in another different location hence a different flame due bad lore to fill into Dark Souls 1, there are few things that made think that like
-Only the bearer of the curse can see throught the efigies (Lucatiel cant)
-The Curse simbol is on their back instead of the heart
-Hollowing is different
-Returning elements with no reason to be there
-The Bearer of the curse went practically to another world on the cinematic like Link in Majoras mask when he was tricked by a black Navi to Termina, The bearer of the curse got tricked by the milfanito Fireflies to travel to Drangelic world.
-A different race of feral Giants
Maybe Gwyndolin and Ariamis helped Priscilla to escape on first place
I always had the idea Dark Souls 2 fire and elements are in another timeline or in another different location hence a different flame due bad lore to fill into Dark Souls 1, there are few things that made think that like
-Only the bearer of the curse can see throught the efigies (Lucatiel cant)
-The Curse simbol is on their back instead of the heart
-Hollowing is different
-Returning elements with no reason to be there
-The Bearer of the curse went practically to another world on the cinematic like Link in Majoras mask when he was tricked by a black Navi to Termina, The bearer of the curse got tricked by the milfanito Fireflies to travel to Drangelic world.
-A different race of feral Giants
Maybe Gwyndolin and Ariamis helped Priscilla to escape on first place
There's DS2 giants in Lothric and Firelink. Look at some of the trees.
Orochinagis
Member
Yeah, but the Anor Londo giants are the active ones in this region, more like the trees are there to justify the giant seed
gift of 100 gab
Member
So there seems to be a lot of talk about pandering and fan-serving in the community. What are the worst examples of this according to you? Siegward? Anor Londo? Purely mentioning references from DS1 in item descriptions and similar? It's very interesting to me to think of Miyazaki as putting a lot of stuff into this game only for the sake of pleasing fans (is this the way he'd do it?), things which to most seem to have no other bearing on the story or lore - but this is the thought of the community?
It's always interesting to see expectations for something meet a finished product. Would some of you have preferred this game to have no direct references or connections to previous games (or DS1 in particular, which seems to be the case here). As a sequel - especially the conclusion - I guess there is always that delicate balance. It struck me when ENB immediately was thinking of references to Bloodborne simply because the description for Ithiryll straight sword mentioned the word "beasts". Just curious. I haven't been part of the lore community but DS1 is one of my favourite games. Intellectually I feel this is a better "game" than the other souls games but not sure what my gut says yet - there is something magical about DS1 (and I played it for the first time last year). I only finished DS3 once so time will tell how well it holds up over time.
It's always interesting to see expectations for something meet a finished product. Would some of you have preferred this game to have no direct references or connections to previous games (or DS1 in particular, which seems to be the case here). As a sequel - especially the conclusion - I guess there is always that delicate balance. It struck me when ENB immediately was thinking of references to Bloodborne simply because the description for Ithiryll straight sword mentioned the word "beasts". Just curious. I haven't been part of the lore community but DS1 is one of my favourite games. Intellectually I feel this is a better "game" than the other souls games but not sure what my gut says yet - there is something magical about DS1 (and I played it for the first time last year). I only finished DS3 once so time will tell how well it holds up over time.
I don't think connections with DS1 are what bother people since I think most people expected (hoped) it would connect to the DS1 lore and expand it. It's the stuff that seems to exist purely as empty references that don't enhance the lore and instead tend to muddle it. That's the kind of pandering that people are annoyed by.
Gwyndolin and Ornstein are two things that sort of bother me personally, since it forces you to change how you viewed the story/sequence of events in DS1.
Well, for me it's several things
The first you mentionned: a lot of the characters just straight up being heavily inspired, or even completely copied from Dark Souls 1, and sometimes 2. Siegward being almost exactly like Siegmeier (but efficient). Irina of Carim wearing the exact same clothing and being extremely similar to Rhea, despite not being from Thorolund. Andre of Astora being just...andre of astora, straight up. As well as the place namedropping like Astora or Catarina.
Now I know you can justify this by saying the lands are shifting and are "transitory". That they are basically revived to be unkindled and fulfill a role. But really, the real reason they're here is because "hey guys, remember dark souls 1 ? Well here there are again, almost unchanged !". Going against also some stuff by Dark souls 1 and 2 which, did have a sense of passing time and being somewhat a tangible world.
The second thing is just that the levels themselves just seem like they're following a formula too closely at this point. You got your first castle level just like Undead Burg or Forest of the fallen giant. You have your marsh/poison like stage like Blight town, Huntsman's cope/Harvest valley. You got your Anor Londo cathedral type zone and your multilayered dungeon. You straight up have lost izalith again, and it's still shitty. For having a lot of transitory lands you sure do go through a lot of the similar stuff. Now of course the real reason it's here it's mostly because it's expected of a souls game to have these zones at this point.
And i'm not even complaining about Anor Londo. Sure it's the exact same zone but at least there's a feeling or progression there, like stuff happened. Not much mind you and a lot is muddled like hell (like why do Smough and Ornstein are still a thing again at this point. You could say they got unkindled but it also implies they were following the timeline straight from dark souls 1 so it doesn't add up). But you know, if you wanna reference stuff at least make it like that, with some lore dumps to justify it. a lot of of things from DS1 are here without much justification and the game goes "Well just remember the first game". There's very little tie-ins
Dark souls 1 today is kinda annoying to go back to with all the little "quality of life" improvement missing from the following games. But still I think that Souls 1 world felt a lot more "whole" because there weren't a lot of things going to waste. They had to build a world after all and so a majority of item description and npcs were here to build that world. Same with Bloodborne and why it was kinda refreshing is not only because it had a different dynamic, gameplay wise, but also because you got to discover a new world with it's intrigues and lore.
Dark souls 3 does feel like a best of Dark souls 1 rather than Dark souls 3 a lot of the time. Like above, it's a "Force awakens" type sequel. A good game (a very good one. I'll take souls 2 and 3 over any AAA thing anytime), very entertaining, but ultimately it also feels a bit pointless and doesn't have anything new to say, banking on your knowledge and nostalgia of the first one.
It was my initial worry of the Souls 3 announcement and i'm a bit miffed I was at least partially proven right. I don't mind a bit of referencing but when almost more than half your inventory is just a reference to the first game (like...really...), you kinda wonder if they didn't just say their piece after the first game and now it's just a rephrasing
GwyndolinCinder
Member
My biggest problem with lore post DS1 is that its not epic, its just interesting.
The story of DS1 is epic, its massive complex scenario about shit going wrong in a place and people trying to fix it.
Story of DS2 has potential to be epic it really does, but it ultimately just focuses on 1.
The story of DS3 however just focuses on 1.
The story of DS1 is epic, its massive complex scenario about shit going wrong in a place and people trying to fix it.
Story of DS2 has potential to be epic it really does, but it ultimately just focuses on 1.
The story of DS3 however just focuses on 1.
Finished for the second time, first ending was straight up link the fire, second ending I summoned the firekeeper; still lots of item descriptions and stuff to go through, but some quick thoughts.
I don't want to agree that the pandering is just pandering, but it feels hard at this point. Yeah, you can dream up a good reason why Andre is there, but the game itself isn't helping at all.
As for the cycles, I don't think any of the endings (well, I am missing one still, I know) are strong enough evidence as to how this is just another cycle.
It really feels to me like DS1 is about the beginning of this world, DS2 is the middle and DS3 does feel like an end. I don't think we should understand DS2 cycles as proper cycles, but as spirals. The world doesn't reset each time the fire is kindled or left alone, it goes into another "instance", so to speak, but drifting closer to the end each time. Scholar of the first sin ending seems to indicate that to me, that this is all one storyline, though with patterns, because by using the crows, the PC can become immortal and keep going along regardless of cycles; he doesn't reset keep the cycle going (by linking the fire) or end it just so it can begin anew (ignoring the fire), he effectively exists as this point outside cycles, living proof that there is linearity in the story.
I don't know if DS3 have any evidence of this, I haven't seen it, but it sure would help my crazy theory to have any evidence of DS2's PC.
The firelink shrine copy is something wide open to interpretation; obviously the linking of the fire happened before, but this isn't new, but I think it is worth noticing it that while in previous game, you just needed this one crazy powerful undead, now you need a crazy powerful undead plus crazy powerful undeads from the past who already linked the fire. And it isn't the first time this happened, since we saw another shrine with the same 5-thrones coniguration. So it is getting harder to keep that flame alive.
Anyway, I have been focusing on actually finishing the game, next playthrough I'll start paying more attention to the lore.
I don't want to agree that the pandering is just pandering, but it feels hard at this point. Yeah, you can dream up a good reason why Andre is there, but the game itself isn't helping at all.
As for the cycles, I don't think any of the endings (well, I am missing one still, I know) are strong enough evidence as to how this is just another cycle.
It really feels to me like DS1 is about the beginning of this world, DS2 is the middle and DS3 does feel like an end. I don't think we should understand DS2 cycles as proper cycles, but as spirals. The world doesn't reset each time the fire is kindled or left alone, it goes into another "instance", so to speak, but drifting closer to the end each time. Scholar of the first sin ending seems to indicate that to me, that this is all one storyline, though with patterns, because by using the crows, the PC can become immortal and keep going along regardless of cycles; he doesn't reset keep the cycle going (by linking the fire) or end it just so it can begin anew (ignoring the fire), he effectively exists as this point outside cycles, living proof that there is linearity in the story.
I don't know if DS3 have any evidence of this, I haven't seen it, but it sure would help my crazy theory to have any evidence of DS2's PC.
The firelink shrine copy is something wide open to interpretation; obviously the linking of the fire happened before, but this isn't new, but I think it is worth noticing it that while in previous game, you just needed this one crazy powerful undead, now you need a crazy powerful undead plus crazy powerful undeads from the past who already linked the fire. And it isn't the first time this happened, since we saw another shrine with the same 5-thrones coniguration. So it is getting harder to keep that flame alive.
Anyway, I have been focusing on actually finishing the game, next playthrough I'll start paying more attention to the lore.
Jathaine
Member
You guys do realize that Andre definitely isn't a normal human/undead, right?
Did you pay attention when picking up some of the embers like the Divine Ember in Dark Souls 1? Did you not notice there were apparently other blacksmiths that looked 'exactly' like Andre? I don't know what he is, but he's definitely something else.
It doesn't surprise me that somehow he survived through the whole mess.
As for the others, it isn't anything new for them to make nods to previous NPCs. Many of the Dark Souls NPCs were nods to Demon's Souls NPCs after all. Is there a formula they are following? Absolutely.
Is it fanservice for the sake of it? I doubt it. Who knows though? I feel like there's a bit more to this.
Did you pay attention when picking up some of the embers like the Divine Ember in Dark Souls 1? Did you not notice there were apparently other blacksmiths that looked 'exactly' like Andre? I don't know what he is, but he's definitely something else.
It doesn't surprise me that somehow he survived through the whole mess.
As for the others, it isn't anything new for them to make nods to previous NPCs. Many of the Dark Souls NPCs were nods to Demon's Souls NPCs after all. Is there a formula they are following? Absolutely.
Is it fanservice for the sake of it? I doubt it. Who knows though? I feel like there's a bit more to this.