Already Torn
Banned
That doesn't sound fun or interesting though, fighting five Artoriases that is.Some guy beat Orenstein and Smough with a drum kit... Nothing is impossible.
That doesn't sound fun or interesting though, fighting five Artoriases that is.Some guy beat Orenstein and Smough with a drum kit... Nothing is impossible.
That doesn't sound fun or interesting though, fighting five Artoriases that is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pretty sure it's Jung the giant, going with the whole "they're vikings" thing from DS2.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Japan gets it in March.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...
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.
One can ask for a better explanation but you should get the gist from thisAnyone 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
still miffed that North America is not getting that free steelbook.
Am I in a Man of Steel thread? LOL!Why is the CGI so bad? There's barely any humor and the acting is so bad.
This is going to bomb.
Any work on fast travel from the beginning? On DS2 it proved to be a solution for easier () level design.lazier
People saying the Giant guy is a Giant from Dark Souls 2 need their eyes checked.
Any work on fast travel from the beginning? On DS2 it proved to be a solution for easier () level design.lazier
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 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.
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!
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.