Why I don't like Dark Soul's 3 (spoilers)

[Fox12]

So, I've finally finished Dark Soul's 3. I've gone back and forth on it so far, but I think I finally have a concrete opinion on the game. I don't like it, and now I know why.

I was annoyed by all of the callback to the original game, but I could deal with the petty fanservice if Fromsoft had left it there. No, the real sin of DS3 is that it completely butchers the lore of the original game. In fact, I would argue that it makes the first game non-canon. Events no longer fit or make sense, and now the game is broken.

I can agree with you there. While I think a certain level of fan service and connectivity is good From Software seem to have really overdone it with this one. Andre being your blacksmith is one that really grated me. Hundreds if not thousands of years have passed since the events of the first game, kingdoms have risen and fallen, ages of dark have come and gone, and Andre is still just pounding away at the same old long sword, and still hasn't figured out that he needs a source of heat to make any progress. Poor Andre.

Seriously, if they really wanted to bring back a blacksmith from Dark Souls 1 they should have brought back Vamos. Just the fact that he's a skeleton makes him ageless and you could easily say that he's unaffected by the spread of the Dark.

For instance, the mere fact that there is a sequel at all means that one of the original endings have been invalidated. The Dark Lord ending can no longer be canon, because there was never an age of dark.

Not true. Both endings to the game are still valid because the age of dark and the age of fire are cycles. In fact, you get to witness an age of dark in this game. Each of the Dark Souls games has a section where you go back in time and this game is no different. The optional area where you fight Champion Gundyr is the past (though it's really unclear how exactly you get there). The game's lore states that Gundyr was a champion of ash, but that he awoke too late and missed his chance to link the fire. When you fight Champion Gundyr you're in the past, fighting him during an age of Dark, he's stronger because he is in his prime, and he does not have his transformation because he has not yet been corrupted by the Dark.

This is bothersome, but it gets much worse. Nothing in the original game really works. In the original game you face Ornstein and Smough in order to meet Gwynevere. Yet, in DS3, it is revealed that this is now non-canon. Ornstein abandoned the city, while Smough was left alone. In the original game you can find Gwyndolin, who has been manipulating you, and kill him. In DS3 we discover that this never happened. Instead he got sick, and was eaten by some random monster.

I sort of agree with you on this point. There's some stuff that still fits in with the established lore, but there's also some stuff where I'm really disappointed by the writing. I've already mentioned in another thread, but I agree with you about Gwyndolin and Aldrich being a weak-point of the game because it invalidates one of the possible choices in the first game. Yes, killing Gwyndolin in the first game was optional, as was uncovering twilight anor londo, however I feel that doing those things is integral to understanding the story of the original Dark Souls and how Gwyndolin was seeking to manipulate the chosen undead. Furthermore, Gwyndolin's appearance in this game (being eaten by Aldrich) would be meaningless to someone who didn't find him in the first game, and the only way to even see Gwyndolin in the first game was to enter his boss room and fight him, which makes him being in this game kind of non-nonsensical from a design standpoint since anyone who would recognize him would be people who had killed him.

In the original game it is implied that either Solaire or Andre are the first born son of Gwyn, and if you look at the art work then it is clear that Andre was originally his son. He looks just like him, and both characters look after their warriors. In DS3 this is completely invalidated, and it is revealed that Gwyn's firstborn was just some random asshole on a dragon. This makes no sense, as the firstborn left after the dragon's were killed, and presumably just before Gwyn sacrificed himself, since he left behind a gift on Gwyn's tomb. The nameless king doesn't fit any of the established lore for the character.

I also agree with you about the Nameless King and how he doesn't really fit with the Dark Souls 1 lore either. Ok, so Andre was originally supposed to be Gwyn's son, and play a much larger role in the first game, but that idea was scrapped, so you can forget about it. Solaire was a fan favorite for being Gwyn's son, but that was just a popular fan theory. It looks good on the surface because of Solaire's fighting style and some of this dialogue but once you dive into his character more that theory fits him less and less (that and the fact that he looks nothing like the broken statue of Gwyn's son). So both of those characters are out of the running for Gwyn's son.

So here's the lore problem with Gwyn's son being the Nameless King: Gwyn's son is said to have been punished and stripped of his deific status because he lost the annals of history.

Description of the Ring of the Sun's Firstborn (from Dark Souls 1): "Lord Gwyn's firstborn was a god of war, but his foolishness led to a loss of the annals, and rescinding of his deific status. Today, even his name is not known."

Description of Sunlight Blade miracle (from Dark Souls 1): "When the eldest son was stripped of his deific status, he left this on his father's coffin, perhaps as a final farewell."

Gwyn's son wasn't stripped of his deific status because he had sided with the dragons, the enemy, it was because he had lost the annals of history (which is one of the causes of the game's lore being difficult to follow, no one knows the complete history of the world because it was lost). It also doesn't make sense how Gwyn's firstborn son could have left something on Gwyn's grave if he had defected to the dragons. If Gwyn had stripped him of his deific status and forced him to leave Anor Londo the firstborn son would not have been able to leave something on Gwyn's tomb, because Gwyn wouldn't HAVE a tomb yet, and there's no way the firstborn son would have been able to come back to Anor Londo at a later time after Gwyn had sacrificed himself to extend the age of fire if he had defected to the dragons because he would have been a traitor and attacked on sight by the blades of the dark moon that Gwyndolin controls.

To make matters worse, even the linking of the fire ending makes no sense. The whole point was that you were either continuing the age of fire, or you were ushering in an age of man. And yet, in Dark Soul's 3, the age of man comes anyway. The gods interbreed with mortals, and Gwyndolin gets eaten by Aldritch. Humanity has basically taken control of the planet, the old religions have stopped worshipping the original gods, and people have even taken over Anor Londo and fed the remaining gods to a monster. If that's the case, then what was the point of linking the fire at all? The age of man comes either way, and humanity doesn't seem to be affected by either ending. The Dark Soul, which is what the game is named after, isn't even mentioned in Dark Soul's 3.

Well again, you were only extending the age of fire from Dark Souls 1, but there have been multiple cycles of the age of fire and the age of Dark between Dark Souls 1 and 3, so the world wasn't going to remain at its status quo. However we don't really know what the effects of the age of dark even are. These games always take place in the final days of the age of fire, and we only see the age of Dark briefly and in one area, it's hard to tell how much of an "age of man" it is. After all, Gwyndolin isn't the only one manipulating the chosen undead, Kaathe is the one who tells you that the age of Dark will be the age of man, but everyone has their own agenda and we never find out if the age of dark brings mankind's rise to power.

It really is unfortunate how little the "Dark Soul" is mentioned in Dark Souls 3 though. It was one of the most important things for understanding the lore in dark souls 1 and 2 (well, scholar of the first sin anyway) and it seems this time around it was abandoned by the wayside.

Anyway, in conclusion, I actually really like this game, but there are a few story elements that I find rather unfortunate. I have to say that my enjoyment of the game took a bit of a nose-dive when I fought Aldrich, and it was mostly because of the lore implications. That being said, I still highly value this game, flaws and all. And honestly, the flaws are part of the charm of this series. Is Dark Souls 1 a flawless masterpiece by any means? Dear god no but we still love it anyway.

...Shit...I wrote too much again.

No one is going to read this.

I hope Caramel Frappe shows up to give me validation and make me feel like I didn't just waste an hour.

EDIT:

Back to Nameless King, come to think of it, he doesn't fit with Gwyn's firstborn son, the god of war, even thematically. The Warriors of Sunlight covenant worshiped him and in Dark Souls 1 it was said that he watched over his warriors.

Sunlight Medal Description (Dark Souls 1): "The symbol represents Lord Gwyn's firstborn, who lost his deity status. But the old God of War still watches closely over his warriors."

The Nameless King doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Warriors of Sunlight covenant, nor does he watch over and protect his warriors. He seems completely indifferent to the player regardless of covenant alliance.

I feel like something they could have done to add to his character would be to have him as a summon available only to sunbros (in a de-powered form). Sort of like what From Software did in bloodborne with making Gascoigne available as a summon for the cleric beast. That way he would be "watching over his warriors" and then when you finally make it to Archdragon Peak you would think "OH, IT'S THAT GUY" and then after beating him and reading the lore on his gear you'd figure out that he's the son of Gwyn, and understand that's why he was available as a summon to you while in the warriors of sunlight covenant.

But now I'm just rambling...

Honestly, I think you've summarized my position Better then I did. I really enjoyed the game until I got to Aldrich and pieced the whole thing together. Heck, I loved the game until then, even if I was unhappy with the level design. I would even say there were mild improvements in the lore. I'm glad that they clarified the story around the painted world of arimais, for instance, and that we got to see quelana and her sister together.

My issue was with how much miyazaki's lore contradicted itself in this title. I wouldn't mind the nameless King, for instance, if they had developed him at all. Instead it felt like they contradicted the story so that they could have a cool boss fight. I may have expected that from Dark Soul's 2, but not from Miyazaki himself. Heck, when I saw Andre in this title, I was convinced he was the son of Gwyn. How else could he have survived all this time? The fact that he's a normal undead almost creates a plot hole in its own right.

I like your interpretation of the age of dark. I played around with the idea that the age of dark was set in the past, but this creates several problems. First of all, why would anyone remember DS1 if there had already been an age of dark? Gwyn's children shouldn't be remembered, much less alive and well. If an entire age of dark had passed then they should be long gone. Instead we meet his daughter, his devoured son, and several of his Knights. Furthermore, no one seems to remember there being an age of dark. Why would everyone remember an age of fire, but not an age of dark? After all, age of dark would have to come after the age of fire. We know, after all, that the age of fire was preceded by the age of dragons. This means that there are more cycles then just light and dark. If the first flame symbolizes the Big Bang, then it stands to reason that dark represents the heat death of the universe. The age of dragons, then, likely represents the moment of maximum entropy before a new Big Bang. This may just be theory, but it fits. It's impossible for there to have been multiple cycles of light and dark between the first and third game.

Furthermore, everyone wants to prevent an age of dark from occurring, and it's implied that the age of fire had been going on for a long time, since every single lord of cinder had once linked the flame. There's no mention of an age of dark. I even made a point to kill the fire keeper in the dark world. If it was set in the past, then the fire keeper in the present should be dead. But she wasn't. This could be an oversight in the game, but I find it more likely that the dark world is either in the future, or its in an entirely different timeline. And that's the central issue. It's impossible for the plot to make sense anymore unless you introduce incredibly convoluted explanations, like the existence of a multiverse. It becomes too warped for its own good, and eventually collapses in on itself. DS1 wasn't perfect, but it had a self contained story that was nearly perfect in its own right. Now I'm not sure what the games are going for.

 

[EvilRoy]

Well, I just gained a serious greivance with the game playing just now if I may whine in your thread.

I did everything right. I killed Horace, didn't tell Anri, got the right from here, continued on... and SOMEONE ELSE STABBED HER IN THE BRAIN. I got to the shithole where stabbing was bound to happen with plans to murder a sage and steal their spell, only to find them dead and Anri murdalized. God damn if the npc quests are hard to follow in this game. I get that it makes it a bit more immersive and fun because they are different people progressing at their own rate and doing stuff in the order they wanna do it, but I'm a little narced about this. I went to the wiki trying to find out who's head I was gonna put a pick through and they don't even have an entry for "someone else murdered her" yet. NNNNNNG. I already screwed up Sunless, and I'm pretty sure the thief is dead or screwed... My "make nice with the NPCs that I killed or fucked up on" run is going terribly.

 

[EvilRoy]

Well, I just gained a serious greivance with the game playing just now if I may whine in your thread.

I did everything right. I killed Horace, didn't tell Anri, got the right from here, continued on... and SOMEONE ELSE STABBED HER IN THE BRAIN. I got to the shithole where stabbing was bound to happen with plans to murder a sage and steal their spell, only to find them dead and Anri murdalized. God damn if the npc quests are hard to follow in this game. I get that it makes it a bit more immersive and fun because they are different people progressing at their own rate and doing stuff in the order they wanna do it, but I'm a little narced about this. I went to the wiki trying to find out who's head I was gonna put a pick through and they don't even have an entry for "someone else murdered her" yet. NNNNNNG. I already screwed up Sunless, and I'm pretty sure the thief is dead or screwed... My "make nice with the NPCs that I killed or fucked up on" run is going terribly.

I've come to find reading the guides tedious. This might be the first Souls in which I don't complete all the quests. Some are too obscure and complicated to complete on your own. I never would have figured out how to get to the Archdragon Peak on my own.

Oddly enough Archdragon Peak was one of the few secret(?) areas I stumbled into dick first on my own thanks to a lot of orange messages... I have to agree though. I may play through a third time, maybe not, but if I don't get all the quests done, whatever. Too much shit can go irreversibly wrong for unknowable reasons for me to be willing to try this again and again. Maybe as the game matures and the guides get a little less awful then I'll have more luck though - I didn't play DS1 or 2 until well after they were released and peopled had the whole thing nailed to the floor for me.

 

[Fox12]

Well, I just gained a serious greivance with the game playing just now if I may whine in your thread.

I did everything right. I killed Horace, didn't tell Anri, got the right from here, continued on... and SOMEONE ELSE STABBED HER IN THE BRAIN. I got to the shithole where stabbing was bound to happen with plans to murder a sage and steal their spell, only to find them dead and Anri murdalized. God damn if the npc quests are hard to follow in this game. I get that it makes it a bit more immersive and fun because they are different people progressing at their own rate and doing stuff in the order they wanna do it, but I'm a little narced about this. I went to the wiki trying to find out who's head I was gonna put a pick through and they don't even have an entry for "someone else murdered her" yet. NNNNNNG. I already screwed up Sunless, and I'm pretty sure the thief is dead or screwed... My "make nice with the NPCs that I killed or fucked up on" run is going terribly.

Was it in the church? I think there's a part of the quest where you're actually supposed to let Anri get killed by an assasin. I actually stumbled onto an npc assasin disguised as a piece of armor by accident once, while I was swinging my sword around like a dick. Apparently they were going to kill him. Look up a youtube guide maybe?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well, I just gained a serious greivance with the game playing just now if I may whine in your thread.

I did everything right. I killed Horace, didn't tell Anri, got the right from here, continued on... and SOMEONE ELSE STABBED HER IN THE BRAIN. I got to the shithole where stabbing was bound to happen with plans to murder a sage and steal their spell, only to find them dead and Anri murdalized. God damn if the npc quests are hard to follow in this game. I get that it makes it a bit more immersive and fun because they are different people progressing at their own rate and doing stuff in the order they wanna do it, but I'm a little narced about this. I went to the wiki trying to find out who's head I was gonna put a pick through and they don't even have an entry for "someone else murdered her" yet. NNNNNNG. I already screwed up Sunless, and I'm pretty sure the thief is dead or screwed... My "make nice with the NPCs that I killed or fucked up on" run is going terribly.

In the church in Irythil where you meet Anri there's an enemy that's disguised as a statue. You have to kill him, otherwise he kills Anri and brings him/her to Anor Londo.

No I did not figure this out on my own nor do I have any idea how someone could without reading a guide.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

While there's IMO plenty of reasons to really dislike DS3, I wouldn't say the lore would be one of them. At worst it's lazy rehashing, nothing that actively bothered me to any kind of breaking point. I found it unengaging, and therefore couldn't get angry at any of it. DS2 at least went full hog into a different direction, and built an entire mythology of its own, with passing references to Dark Souls 1. Dark Souls 3 seems to base its lore entirely on references to Dark Souls 1.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Solaire was just a bloke from Astora looking for his own sun. He was a fool, but a strong one.

The O&S thing is a bit loopy, as Smough's armor says he was the last knight left in Anor Londo (despite him being together with Ornstein and his DS1 armor said he wasn't a knight due to eating people). The Gwyndolin thing isn't really a bother since it is an entirely optional boss that many wouldn't kill if they even found him.

The Endings aren't relevant as the fire would fade eventually anyways and someone would come and link the fire at some point (DS2 stressed the idea of cycles).

Though the game REALLY seems to be trying to wipe DS2 out of the picture. Despite them being utterly forgotten lands we somehow have people from Carim, Astora, and Catarina showing up as if nothing happened. The DS2 old hag firekeeper model is now the old hag merchant in DS3, and the new firekeeper is The Maiden in Black again. There is a lot of other similar things that seem to make it look like DS3 is trying to replace DS2 as the real Dark Souls sequel.

 

[Silence]

So overall I don't care too much, and there is some lore-butchering going on. At the same time, your examples are not good at all.

So, I've finally finished Dark Soul's 3. I've gone back and forth on it so far, but I think I finally have a concrete opinion on the game. I don't like it, and now I know why.

I was annoyed by all of the callback to the original game, but I could deal with the petty fanservice if Fromsoft had left it there. No, the real sin of DS3 is that it completely butchers the lore of the original game. In fact, I would argue that it makes the first game non-canon. Events no longer fit or make sense, and now the game is broken.

For instance, the mere fact that there is a sequel at all means that one of the original endings have been invalidated. The Dark Lord ending can no longer be canon, because there was never an age of dark. This is bothersome, but it gets much worse.

Since the Dark Lord Ending and the continuation of the Age of Fire in DS1 are TWO different outcomes, and the Dark Lord ending ENDS the age of fire - no, it does not invalidate this ending. Otherwise, one of the two endings in DS1 would already be 'non-canon', without needing any kind of sequel.

DS3 decides to show what happens with the Age of Fire - if you do the other thing, the lore ends there. In DS1 already, and DS3 just does not exist. DS3 is the follow-up to one possibility, not making the other invalid.

Nothing in the original game really works. In the original game you face Ornstein and Smough in order to meet Gwynevere. Yet, in DS3, it is revealed that this is now non-canon. Ornstein abandoned the city, while Smough was left alone.

Fair point, was in DS2 already though. Also there might have been indications of this in DS1 already, if I remember ENBs last playthrough correctly - but I'm not arguing with that as I don't remember where it was.

In the original game you can find Gwyndolin, who has been manipulating you, and kill him. In DS3 we discover that this never happened. Instead he got sick, and was eaten by some random monster.

See the Dark Lord Ending: In the 'AGE OF FIRE' playthrough you never find Gwyndolin. It's the variation of events DS3 follows.
Otherwise, you would follow Dark Lord Ending.

In the original game it is implied that either Solaire or Andre are the first born son of Gwyn, and if you look at the art work then it is clear that Andre was originally his son. He looks just like him, and both characters look after their warriors.

This was never implicated, and was always pure lore speculation. Andre originally had a larger role to play, and maybe was intended to be that, but was, IN DS1 ALREADY, not.
The lore on Nameless King makes far more sense. Seen from DS1, not counting anything else.

In DS3 this is completely invalidated, and it is revealed that Gwyn's firstborn was just some random asshole on a dragon. This makes no sense, as the firstborn left after the dragon's were killed, and presumably just before Gwyn sacrificed himself, since he left behind a gift on Gwyn's tomb. The nameless king doesn't fit any of the established lore for the character.

I don't understand this point, it seems 99% 'my fan speculation does not work anymore' - I never heard of this. Also I thought Gwyns son was banished by Gwyn.

To make matters worse, even the linking of the fire ending makes no sense. The whole point was that you were either continuing the age of fire, or you were ushering in an age of man. And yet, in Dark Soul's 3, the age of man comes anyway. The gods interbreed with mortals, and Gwyndolin gets eaten by Aldritch. Humanity has basically taken control of the planet, the old religions have stopped worshipping the original gods, and people have even taken over Anor Londo and fed the remaining gods to a monster. If that's the case, then what was the point of linking the fire at all? The age of man comes either way, and humanity doesn't seem to be affected by either ending. The Dark Soul, which is what the game is named after, isn't even mentioned in Dark Soul's 3.

It's not the age of men, since you can do the age of men in DS3 itself - apparently it did not happen yet.
And the Dark Lord ending makes the world dark - that is not the events of DS3 itself.
Oh, and for the most part, humans/hollows had 'taken over' the world by the same standards in DS1 already.

You have no point here.

At times DS3 feels like self parody. What was Fromsoft thinking? In terms of lore, I think DS3 is even worse then DS2. What's your opinion on the lore? Is it salvageable? Is it even worth salvaging? Or do you think the game was fine despite these flaws?

It has better lore than DS2, but is quite fanservicey. It answers a lot of not already answered questions of DS1 (like the firstborn thing, for which the 'answer' always was pure fan speculation) and answers them in a mostly satisfying way.
It only follows the events of the 'first playthrough' of DS1, so to speak - which is fine. Does not invalidate the other ending. In fact, it's better than DS2 in that regard, because people thought DS1 was meaningless in its endings. Apparently, it is not.
But if you want this statement: Yeah, DS never should have had an official sequel, doing another world (like Demon Souls/Bloodborne) would have been better.

Gameplay is better than it has ever been, but that's not your point.

 

[Fox12]

So overall I don't care too much, and there is some lore-butchering going on. At the same time, your examples are not good at all.

So, I've finally finished Dark Soul's 3. I've gone back and forth on it so far, but I think I finally have a concrete opinion on the game. I don't like it, and now I know why.

I was annoyed by all of the callback to the original game, but I could deal with the petty fanservice if Fromsoft had left it there. No, the real sin of DS3 is that it completely butchers the lore of the original game. In fact, I would argue that it makes the first game non-canon. Events no longer fit or make sense, and now the game is broken.

For instance, the mere fact that there is a sequel at all means that one of the original endings have been invalidated. The Dark Lord ending can no longer be canon, because there was never an age of dark. This is bothersome, but it gets much worse.

Since the Dark Lord Ending and the continuation of the Age of Fire in DS1 are TWO different outcomes, and the Dark Lord ending ENDS the age of fire - no, it does not invalidate this ending. Otherwise, one of the two endings in DS1 would already be 'non-canon', without needing any kind of sequel.

DS3 decides to show what happens with the Age of Fire - if you do the other thing, the lore ends there. In DS1 already, and DS3 just does not exist. DS3 is the follow-up to one possibility, not making the other invalid.

Nothing in the original game really works. In the original game you face Ornstein and Smough in order to meet Gwynevere. Yet, in DS3, it is revealed that this is now non-canon. Ornstein abandoned the city, while Smough was left alone.

Fair point, was in DS2 already though. Also there might have been indications of this in DS1 already, if I remember ENBs last playthrough correctly - but I'm not arguing with that as I don't remember where it was.

In the original game you can find Gwyndolin, who has been manipulating you, and kill him. In DS3 we discover that this never happened. Instead he got sick, and was eaten by some random monster.

See the Dark Lord Ending: In the 'AGE OF FIRE' playthrough you never find Gwyndolin. It's the variation of events DS3 follows.
Otherwise, you would follow Dark Lord Ending.

In the original game it is implied that either Solaire or Andre are the first born son of Gwyn, and if you look at the art work then it is clear that Andre was originally his son. He looks just like him, and both characters look after their warriors.

This was never implicated, and was always pure lore speculation. Andre originally had a larger role to play, and maybe was intended to be that, but was, IN DS1 ALREADY, not.
The lore on Nameless King makes far more sense. Seen from DS1, not counting anything else.

In DS3 this is completely invalidated, and it is revealed that Gwyn's firstborn was just some random asshole on a dragon. This makes no sense, as the firstborn left after the dragon's were killed, and presumably just before Gwyn sacrificed himself, since he left behind a gift on Gwyn's tomb. The nameless king doesn't fit any of the established lore for the character.

I don't understand this point, it seems 99% 'my fan speculation does not work anymore' - I never heard of this. Also I thought Gwyns son was banished by Gwyn.

To make matters worse, even the linking of the fire ending makes no sense. The whole point was that you were either continuing the age of fire, or you were ushering in an age of man. And yet, in Dark Soul's 3, the age of man comes anyway. The gods interbreed with mortals, and Gwyndolin gets eaten by Aldritch. Humanity has basically taken control of the planet, the old religions have stopped worshipping the original gods, and people have even taken over Anor Londo and fed the remaining gods to a monster. If that's the case, then what was the point of linking the fire at all? The age of man comes either way, and humanity doesn't seem to be affected by either ending. The Dark Soul, which is what the game is named after, isn't even mentioned in Dark Soul's 3.

It's not the age of men, since you can do the age of men in DS3 itself - apparently it did not happen yet.
And the Dark Lord ending makes the world dark - that is not the events of DS3 itself.
Oh, and for the most part, humans/hollows had 'taken over' the world by the same standards in DS1 already.

You have no point here.

At times DS3 feels like self parody. What was Fromsoft thinking? In terms of lore, I think DS3 is even worse then DS2. What's your opinion on the lore? Is it salvageable? Is it even worth salvaging? Or do you think the game was fine despite these flaws?

It has better lore than DS2, but is quite fanservicey. It answers a lot of not already answered questions of DS1 (like the firstborn thing, for which the 'answer' always was pure fan speculation) and answers them in a mostly satisfying way.
It only follows the events of the 'first playthrough' of DS1, so to speak - which is fine. Does not invalidate the other ending. In fact, it's better than DS2 in that regard, because people thought DS1 was meaningless in its endings. Apparently, it is not.
But if you want this statement: Yeah, DS never should have had an official sequel, doing another world (like Demon Souls/Bloodborne) would have been better.

Gameplay is better than it has ever been, but that's not your point.

All this tells me is that you didn't read or understand anything from the first game, so I'm not sure where the attitudes coming from.

The Ornstein thing is a problem, since we MUST kill him in DS1. Saying that he's in DS 2 doesn't fix this point. In fact, it makes it worse, since, by your logic, we've now killed him twice. Second of all, his presence in DS2 is as much speculation as solaire or Andre being Gwyn' son. There's evidence to back it up, but it's never confirmed. All we know is that the enemy has similar armor and moves to Ornstein. He could just be a cosplayer for all we know. Finally, it's never implied that he left Anor Londo in DS2. In fact, the city we fight him in is implied to be Anor Londo, which means that he never left. Even if it is him, he never left the city. At most he's become a kind of dark spirit guarding the halls of Anor Londo. DS3 removes him from the location entirely, which now contradicts both DS1 and DS2.

As for gywndolin, I think Dirty Hipster made a good point. From design standpoint the player wouldn't even know about Gwyndolin unless they'd discovered him in the first game. If they didn't discover him then they wouldn't care about him in DS3. Your hand waiving makes little sense.

Concerning Gwyn's firstborn, you are correct, you don't understand. If you had actually read the posts you would see what I'm trying to say. I'm not upset that fan theories were wrong, I'm upset that The Nameless King contradicts the lore in DS1. I've explained this already, but I guess I'll do so yet again. In DS1 it is stated that the firstborn was exiled from Anor Londo for foolishly losing the annals of history. He wasn't exiled for joining the dragons, he was exiled for losing the history of Anor Londo. We know this for a fact. The betrayal plot line was never even implied, and in fact created some lore problems. The most obvious one is that the dragons are almost all dead, with only one known survivor in DS1. He couldn't have joined the dragons during the war because he wasn't exiled until much, much later, near the end of his fathers reign. We know this for several reasons. First of all, he couldn't have lost the annals of history unless there was actually some history to record. This is why so much is left to speculation in DS1: the history is gone. Second of all, we know that he left an item on his fathers tomb as a farewell before leaving Anor Londo. Since the tomb is empty, it is implied that it was built shortly after Gwyn decided to offer himself to the first flame, but was completed before he'd actually done it. Otherwise there would be no one to banish the firstborn. Therefore the firstborn would have left near the very end of the world timeline, making his banishment somewhat recent by the standards of the gods. Finally, the sunlight medal says that the God of war still looks after his warriors. Both Andre and Solaire help other warriors on their quest. The Nameless King never does any such thing, and, in fact, seems to work against them. Meanwhile, Andre resembles Gwyn, and Solaire's dialogue implies that he could be the firstborn. Both fit the descriptions to a T, and it is fairly obvious that one of them was intended to be the firstborn. There is nothing in DS1 to suggest that the Nameless King even exists. All the evidence you mentioned was shoehorned into DS3 without explanation. This would be find except that, again, it contradicts DS1. So, no, the Nameless King being the firstborn does not make a lot more sense.

As for the Age of men, clearly it's already happened, since men are the only thing left. What else could it be? I mean really...

In any case, I'm fine with him wanting to clarify things. The issue is that he introduced elements that contradicted what was already there. It was sloppy, and the whole game felt phoned in. The level design and story felt like very little real thought was put into them. The mechanics were polished, I guess, but they had to get something right. After five other similar games I'd hope they'd at least have that down.

 

[Silence]

-snip-

All this tells me is that you didn't read or understand anything from the first game, so I'm not sure where the attitudes coming from.

I watched a fact-based ENB playthrough, using everything we knew so far.

The Ornstein thing is a problem, since we MUST kill him in DS1. Saying that he's in DS 2 doesn't fix this point. In fact, it makes it worse, since, by your logic, we've now killed him twice. Second of all, his presence in DS2 is as much speculation as solaire or Andre being Gwyn' son. There's evidence to back it up, but it's never confirmed. All we know is that the enemy has similar armor and moves to Ornstein. He could just be a cosplayer for all we know. Finally, it's never implied that he left Anor Londo in DS2. In fact, the city we fight him in is implied to be Anor Londo, which means that he never left. Even if it is him, he never left the city. At most he's become a kind of dark spirit guarding the halls of Anor Londo. DS3 removes him from the location entirely, which now contradicts both DS1 and DS2.

Never said this was not a problem. In fact, I said this was the only good point.

As for gywndolin, I think Dirty Hipster made a good point. From design standpoint the player wouldn't even know about Gwyndolin unless they'd discovered him in the first game. If they didn't discover him then they wouldn't care about him in DS3. Your hand waiving makes little sense.

Why does the player care about Gwyndolin in the third game? The player does not care at all. He just understands more by knowing DS1 things.
But the player character itself does not know or care about Gwyndolin. Others have discovered Gwyndolin.

I don't even understand what your point is here.

Concerning Gwyn's firstborn, you are correct, you don't understand. If you had actually read the posts you would see what I'm trying to say. I'm not upset that fan theories were wrong, I'm upset that The Nameless King contradicts the lore in DS1. I've explained this already, but I guess I'll do so yet again. In DS1 it is stated that the firstborn was exiled from Anor Londo for foolishly losing the annals of history. He wasn't exiled for joining the dragons, he was exiled for losing the history of Anor Londo. We know this for a fact. The betrayal plot line was never even implied, and in fact created some lore problems. The most obvious one is that the dragons are almost all dead, with only one known survivor in DS1. He couldn't have joined the dragons during the war because he wasn't exiled until much, much later, near the end of his fathers reign. We know this for several reasons. First of all, he couldn't have lost the annals of history unless there was actually some history to record. This is why so much is left to speculation in DS1: the history is gone. Second of all, we know that he left an item on his fathers tomb as a farewell before leaving Anor Londo. Since the tomb is empty, it is implied that it was built shortly after Gwyn decided to offer himself to the first flame, but was completed before he'd actually done it. Otherwise there would be no one to banish the firstborn. Therefore the firstborn would have left near the very end of the world timeline, making his banishment somewhat recent by the standards of the gods.

Could be, never heard it as fact. I give you that much ... it could have been changed.
Although this one is ridiculous: First of all, he couldn't have lost the annals of history unless there was actually some history to record.

There was a lot of history to loose, like Oolaciles. Which was long before Gwyn linked the fire. So he could have lost everything that was around that time.
Also why do you start building a grave before the person is declared dead? You could argue with morbidity, but ... ahh.

Finally, the sunlight medal says that the God of war still looks after his warriors. Both Andre and Solaire help other warriors on their quest. The Nameless King never does any such thing, and, in fact, seems to work against them.

Ever were in a church? "God/Jesus looks after his people". That's pretty much the same, no indication of anyone really being there.

Meanwhile, Andre resembles Gwyn,

Old Design, no indication apart from how he looks (and there are actually several dead stone copies of Andre in DS1, making it extremely unlikely that he could ever be the firstborn.

and Solaire's dialogue implies that he could be the firstborn.

Solaire is a bumbling fool, and nothing he does resembles anything 'firstborn' or god-like. And this is purely going on DS1. He is mad, crazy. Literally. His story resembles that of the players, trying to find something that is not there. It has nothing to do with the firstborn, aside from that he is one warrior of sunlight. And even then, his armour has no magical qualities and was self-made.

Both fit the descriptions to a T, and it is fairly obvious that one of them was intended to be the firstborn. There is nothing in DS1 to suggest that the Nameless King even exists. All the evidence you mentioned was shoehorned into DS3 without explanation. This would be find except that, again, it contradicts DS1. So, no, the Nameless King being the firstborn does not make a lot more sense.

Neither of these two fit the descriptions. Even if we had a god of war banished, he would neither be a simple smith right under Anor Londo, nor be a madman, with no magical qualities. And certainly no love for his 'sun'.

As for the Age of men, clearly it's already happened, since men are the only thing left. What else could it be? I mean really...

So you concur that the age of men has started in DS1 already? After all, in DS1 the only one left is Gwyndolin.
And in DS3 ... the only one left is Gwyndolin.

Oh, maybe Gwynevere too ... in both games.

Also, how can the DS3 secret ending be the same as DS1, if it has already happened?

In any case, I'm fine with him wanting to clarify things. The issue is that he introduced elements that contradicted what was already there. It was sloppy, and the whole game felt phoned in. The level design and story felt like very little real thought was put into them. The mechanics were polished, I guess, but they had to get something right. After five other similar games I'd hope they'd at least have that down.

 

[Mahorfeus]

A point of clarification.

The Ring of the Sun's Firstborn in Dark Souls doesn't say that he lost the annals of history; the original Japanese description says that he was lost to the annals of history. The English item description of the Sunlight Medal from that game is more correct, stating that the firstborn "lost his deity status and was expunged from the annals." So, in the original Dark Souls, we as players have no idea why he was stripped of his status. "Losing the annals of history" doesn't really make sense, in any case.

As far as his siding with the dragons, it might have happened after the start of the Age of Fire, but before Gwyn linked the fire. We know for a fact that Anor Londo was still warring with the dragons after the Age of Ancients; Gough's dialogue seems to imply that much. Or, if Anor Londo was already founded during the Age of Ancients, it might have very well happened then. The Nameless King might very well have returned to Anor Londo to visit his father's tomb.

Solaire has always been a stretch, and we only know that Andre was originally intended to be the firstborn from developer commentary.

 

[Broderick]

The more I think about it, the more I think Dark Souls 3 takes place in a world where the player character of Dark Souls 1 never got to anor Londo. We already know there is weird timeliness and alternate reality bs in the game.

If there is no chosen undead to fight, then that means ornstein's decision to leave makes sense, as is suggested by both his armor, as well as smough's. as for ds2, well I am unsure that even fits within the Canon of 3 at all, as there is very little to go on as to why ornstein is there, or if it is even him at all.

The Nameless king makes sense to be gwyn's first born, as it is suggested through both ornstein's armor, and the nameless kings weapons and spells that he is the heir. If his big mistake was siding with the dragons, it would make sense for him to be purged from the annals (he didn't lose the annals, that was a translation error, he was lost TO the annals of history).

I love Solaire, but other than love for the sun, and his use of lightening powers, there is nothing to suggest he was the lost son of gwyn. Andre, by word of God, was said to be the original heir, but that version of the game was scrapped, so he was just a humble blacksmith in the game we got.

I like Dark souls 3 a lot, and it is true that it's canon at first glance seems to contradict the lore, but if you keep in mind that this is a game where alternate timelines and universes are canonical, a lot of the lore makes a lot more sense, especially taking in the untended Graves into account.

 

[Zetman]

so how about the gameplay

 

[EvilRoy]

Was it in the church? I think there's a part of the quest where you're actually supposed to let Anri get killed by an assasin. I actually stumbled onto an npc assasin disguised as a piece of armor by accident once, while I was swinging my sword around like a dick. Apparently they were going to kill him. Look up a youtube guide maybe?

In the church in Irythil where you meet Anri there's an enemy that's disguised as a statue. You have to kill him, otherwise he kills Anri and brings him/her to Anor Londo.

No I did not figure this out on my own nor do I have any idea how someone could without reading a guide.

God.
Dammit.

Well, at least I know now. That absolutely wasn't on the wiki I was reading. I think I'm gonna find Karla or whatever her name is. Spook. Murder her. Feel better.

 

[Maphysto]

Every complaint I've read about DS3 feels like it's coming from some weird alternate timeline where DS2 was released as the third game.

"It feels petty and fanservicey."
"It didn't make any sense."
"It butchered the previous lore."
"The level design was too linear."

Did... did any actually PLAY Dark Souls 2? Seriously, go back and play it again, and TRY to tell me that those four statements aren't a completely accurate summary. Dark Souls 3, on the other hand, has excellent level design (not quite on the same level as 1, but that's a REALLY high bar), the plot made sense and was well-written, and the callbacks were frankly minor and sparingly used (with possible exceptions for the return to Anor Londo.)

Like, seriously, what am i missing here? What is it you guys are seeing that makes you hate 3's lore so much? Because i played the same damn game and felt the lore was close to perfect.

 

[Fox12]

A point of clarification.

The Ring of the Sun's Firstborn in Dark Souls doesn't say that he lost the annals of history; the original Japanese description says that he was lost to the annals of history. The English item description of the Sunlight Medal from that game is more correct, stating that the firstborn "lost his deity status and was expunged from the annals." So, in the original Dark Souls, we as players have no idea why he was stripped of his status. "Losing the annals of history" doesn't really make sense, in any case.

As far as his siding with the dragons, it might have happened after the start of the Age of Fire, but before Gwyn linked the fire. We know for a fact that Anor Londo was still warring with the dragons after the Age of Ancients; Gough's dialogue seems to imply that much. Or, if Anor Londo was already founded during the Age of Ancients, it might have very well happened then. The Nameless King might very well have returned to Anor Londo to visit his father's tomb.

Solaire has always been a stretch, and we only know that Andre was originally intended to be the firstborn from developer commentary.

Oh, that's quite interesting. I may have to look that up now. I always wondered how someone could lose the annals of history. I just assumed they got destroyed in a library or something. I suppose it's possible that he decided to preserve the remaining dragons, and was banished. I still prefer the Andre and Solaire interpretation, but as long as the lore makes sense I suppose it's fine. I'll have to think more on that. Thanks for sharing.

Was it in the church? I think there's a part of the quest where you're actually supposed to let Anri get killed by an assasin. I actually stumbled onto an npc assasin disguised as a piece of armor by accident once, while I was swinging my sword around like a dick. Apparently they were going to kill him. Look up a youtube guide maybe?

In the church in Irythil where you meet Anri there's an enemy that's disguised as a statue. You have to kill him, otherwise he kills Anri and brings him/her to Anor Londo.

No I did not figure this out on my own nor do I have any idea how someone could without reading a guide.

God.
Dammit.

Well, at least I know now. That absolutely wasn't on the wiki I was reading. I think I'm gonna find Karla or whatever her name is. Spook. Murder her. Feel better.

That's rough. I know that action is necessary for one of the endings, but it definitely sucks if you want to help him on his quest. I managed to save him completely by accident on my playthrough, so I guess I got lucky : /

 

[Hair Jordan]

I'm going to have to agree...after some consideration I was disappointed by DSIII as well.

It's not just the story and lore though. It shows, quite a bit, that FromSoft put out three games in as many years.

tl;dr - DSIII feels way too much like Bloodeborne + fanservice. Sorry about the long post. It's just a rant, so feel free to ignore it.


I think the largest "sin" this game got a pass for, was sacrificing non-linearity. In general, the game has backed away from risky design decisions.

The Shrine Handmaiden sells a 20K "key" that unlocks a gate behind the shrine. "Seems familiar". Only, in this game, it's just a way to unlock a few measly items and crow trading, as opposed to a branching path of non-linearity. The disappointment you can distill from this moment is an apt metaphor for the entire game. Things are just underwhelming.

Instead of risking people being lost, we have one or two paths for progression. Instead of risking people being confused, we do away with damage immunities, and instead offer "buffs" against certain enemy types. Instead of risking people being frustrated, we make "dark" areas very brief, and nerf poison into the ground. Instead of risking people being impatient, we have default vendors and more fast-travel. Instead of risking rage, due to invaders, we buff co-op into a total de facto easy mode. And so on.

The gameplay, while fun on it's surface, is a haphazard mess when explored. Weapon arts, outside of spin-to-wins and Perseverance, are more or less pointless. People, to this day, cannot figure out what is going on with poise. The game seemingly shipped with a placebo stat, making certain items, like the Wolf Ring, literally useless. Heavy armor, as well, is pretty much pointless, since it's budgeted around a placebo and they removed armor upgrading. Casting, while a little better with the last patch, is mainly a novelty. This is chiefly because there's no real reason to use anything except your most effective spells, given that they all consume the same resource. Variety is pretty much pointless. Far from feeling like a well oiled machine, the third installment feels uneven and barely glued together. Rings, in general, were nerfed as well, and build variety is at an all time low.

You get the very strong impression that wanted people to "Bloodborne" their way through this game, and other gameplay techniques, like ranged builds, were added for legacy purposes.

Bloodeborne. I could go on and on about how much this game had far, far too much influence on DSIII, in all things large and small. From the "evil Catholic" schtick to the lanky, fast, screamo, enemies, to the goofy, oversize purple moon of the Boreal Valley, to the Tim Burton trees, to all of the Undead Settlement, to the location of the final boss fight, Dark Souls III has an identity crisis. You can't look at an enemy like the "Lycanthropes" and not get the strong impression that they're in the wrong game. I didn't want to spend so much of the game fighting deacons, popes, saints, evangelists, and so on...I already did that in From's last game.

The more fantastical elements of Dark Souls were given a major backseat to all of the Evil Catholic BS. We spend far too much time in castles and cathedrals, at the direct expense of more pure fantasy environments like Ash Lake, the Crystal Cave, the Great Hollow, and so on. Cynically, it feels like we have so much brick and stained glass because it was easier to develop on a harsh deadline, coming out of Bloodborne.

Archdragon Peak is the real offender here. They could have set AP on the moon if they really wanted to...but instead we get ANOTHER castle area with dragons....slightly different than the other castle area with dragoons...in the same game.

The fact is DSIII took us next to nowhere new.

The "lords of cinder" themselves are underwhelming, as well. Without cheating...try and remember who the four "big bosses" of DSII were...If you're like me, you have to think about it for a minute. Now try that with DSI...If you're finding it easier, I don't think it's just because of sequelitis. DSI did a far better job at not just presenting it's bosses, but tying them all together into a cohesive world, and an epic story, as characters.

The key figure, here, was Gwyn. He was the rug that really tied the room together. He was a character with motivation, and impact upon his world. DSIII needed a rug of it's own, as all of it's characters are seemingly atomized from one another, much more like DSII. The Pontiff and Aldrich get a decent amount of exposition, annoyingly, but the rest are just kind of...around. Even if Nito was a faceroll boss - he FELT epic, due to his place in the story, the Darkwraiths, and the way the environmental lore built up to his encounter. Ditto for the other "lords" of DSI, they were reinforced so well by the rest of the game. The New Londo Ruins and the Four Kings work in EXACTLY the way that the Profaned Capitol and Yhorm doesn't. They didn't feel designed first, and placed, second, into a pre-existing area.

The few bosses that evoke similar feelings in III are cheating...they're relying on our familiarity with the first game to manufacture similar reactions. If not for Gwyndolin and Anor Londo, Aldrich would have been a much more mundane boss. I didn't feel anything particularly "awesome" about my encounter with the Abyss Watchers, either. They were just... in a room? I guess the Abysss is around here somewhere? And they watch it? The build up to them did very little to reinforce their purpose or lore - which the first game NAILED.

Unlike the first game, where the lords had a clear motivation from the start in an epic story - overthrow the dragons - our recalcitrant lords seem part of a mundane story, have little personality, outside of the emo prince, and unsatisfying motivations for their actions. Sorry From, but the "teenage nihilist" has been boring since the 90's, and is far less interesting than characters with relatable motivations. I would have been much more interested in, say, a storyline where Lothric wanted some kind of revenge levied upon his father due to his hubris or madness...or something.

Then...there's that final boss. He/she seems like an almost literal dues ex machina, and you really have to do some brain-busting mental gymnastics to figure out how their existence makes any sense. So, apparently this manifestation guards the flame? This is the flame that the other "Lords of Cinder" lit on their own, right? Did they fight Skeletor too? If so, how is Skeletor still around? Does it respawn? How is that not...kind of stupid? On that note, how did the other lords get to "go home", to their graves, after their fight and/or linking? Why weren't they guarding the flame until they, themselves, were vanquished, the way we find Gwyn in the first game?

Any explanations that rely on alternate timelines/parallel universes, etc. are IMMEDIATELY inferior to a straightforward and well written story that doesn't rely on gimmicky and convoluted plot contrivances. We didn't need any of that crap for the intro to DSI, which told us plainly what was going on. Back to the Future, this is not, and I shouldn't need contrived explanations to explain the "logic" of a game's FINAL boss. You can pretty much write whatever garbage you want so long as a "wizard did it" and you magic wand away any inconsistencies, contradictions, or confusing storyline elements.

Skeletor quite literally had no personality, motivation, or, seemingly, impact whatsoever on the world they inhabited. They very much seemed like a immersion breaking "video game" creation, there to mainly have a "cool" end boss. They were pointless, in other words. The storyline would have been fine, had they existed or not. They're there, mainly, to fill the void that was left by this game lacking any kind of compelling primary antagonist to unite the otherwise disparate elements of the story, a la Gwyn. It was just the epitome of laziness, to me. DSIII was just a cop-out, and a mess, in the end, right down to our recycled endings.

If you're going to counter that this mundane repetition and denialism of potential was "the point", I'm going to counter, again, that nihilism is boring and passe, as a literary device. Nihilism is easy, which is why it's so popular with the young, and doesn't take much creative spark to evoke. There are many, many works that explore the theme much better, and we didn't need a hackneyed attempt in a rushed video game. DSIII felt like it was done the "easy" way, instead of anything resembling creative challenge.