From Software The Dark Souls Discussion Thread

[Skinwalker]

Learning the enemies' moveset is far more critical in DS games than any in-game leveling mechanics. Which is the main reason for their success - it relies on player skill, rather than mindless grinding and dumb luck.

 

[Caim]

Why did they make the game easier as the player progresses?

I suggest you quickly replay through the beginning of the game one day, just to make sure you're not just a better player yourself.
Sure the character can get quite strong in terms of stats, but what truly triviliaze the endgame is your player xp imo.
Which is something I really liked back then. Creating a new character and going through the early game like "wait how the fuck is this so easy now ?" was a good feeling.

People claim the further we got into the series the easiest the game became. This is not true: we just got gud.

 

[Cadmus]

so, I must remark how good the delivery of the story is; just by the level design and with a few sentences about the history of the world it managed to make me strongly antagonize the tyranny of Gwynn and his circus of freaks, a brave departure from the standard tale presented at the beginning of the game which felt natural and stated in a clear yet not ham-fisted manner, keeping the balance between the two prospective outcomes by showing the horrors the dark serpent's bet entails.

How the fuck you had any idea about any of this is a mystery to me.
On my first playthrough I didn't understand anything at all about the story or about anything in the game.
Basically all my understanding of the game story and themes can be summed up by this famous image:

Spoiler

 

[Rilmani404]

Everyone ought to check out the “Dark Souls Except It’s Incredibly Cursed” YouTube video. Lots of new content available (dark souls 1). Guns (which are disabled by default and must be found hidden through the game), sorceries, vastly improved ranged weapons, weapon moves, Velka miracles, improved dragon… something for everyone. Even sticky bombs.

Go invade or stomp bosses with the fancy toys… or give feedback to the creator. This is the Halo modder who made the “longest warthog” video a while ago, if anyone saw that.

 

[Caim]

I take it you're not here long enough to embed videos, so here we go:

 

[mogwaimon]

I take it you're not here long enough to embed videos, so here we go:

came here to post these now i can surely get past ornstein and smough now that I can use sticky grenades

 

[Eldagusto]

I would love it if Lore Books were released expanding on the lore of the various Souls game, its sooo damn good!

 

[mediocrepoet]

I always wondered what the sorts of people who bankroll Vaati were like. I guess now I know.

 

[Black Angel]

You know, some people said that the narrative elements of the Soulsborne games has always been an afterthought. Tbh, I didn't get that impression with Dark Souls 1 at all, much less with Bloodborne. However, with Dark Souls 3 (and Dark Souls 2, albeit to a much lesser extent) it does seem to be the case. Dark Souls 2 can sound like a bit of fanfic, but the DLC is solid and earned its place in the canon. But oh boy Dark Souls 3, and in contrast to DaS2's, its DLCs reads like the climax of some really, really bad fanfiction. I'd still think the base game Dark Souls 3 does includes plot points and story elements that made it more fitting to be a proper sequel to Dark Souls 1 than Dark Souls 2, but everything else about it just feels so half-assed.

I don't know if any Codexer ever brought it up, in this thread or the others, but remember when BamCo announced that they're offering a prize to someone who could 'explain' the story of Dark Souls?

And then Dark Souls 3 was released a month later. Like I said, the base game at the very least includes most of the relevant plot points and story elements of Dark Souls 1 to make it seem like a more proper sequel, but the DLC?

I haven't actually read the explanation that 'won' the 'competition, but still....in case you haven't figure out what I'm saying here: I have a stinking feeling that they took the 'winning' explanation and put it in the DLC.

Yeah, I'm wearing my tin foil hat at the moment, no need to ask.

 

[Silva]

As with everything in the series, DS1, BB and Sekiro have actual thought put to it. The rest is lazy fanfic.

I agree on a basic level DS3 has good lore that extrapolated DS1 on a good direction, but past that its awful fanfic-level shit.

 

[Silverfish]

DS2 is actually pretty good high fantasy fluff minus the "shards of Manus" nonsense.

 

[Caim]

DS2 is actually pretty good high fantasy fluff minus the "shards of Manus" nonsense.

Mainly because it didn't go anywhere. Sure in Dark Souls 3 there's the witch who sells you hexes as another shard, but it doesn't really surmount to anything.

 

[Silva]

DS2 is actually pretty good high fantasy fluff minus the "shards of Manus" nonsense.

Mainly because it didn't go anywhere. Sure in Dark Souls 3 there's the witch who sells you hexes as another shard, but it doesn't really surmount to anything.

For real? I don't remember that witch saying she was a shard of Manus.

 

[Wunderbar]

DS2 is actually pretty good high fantasy fluff minus the "shards of Manus" nonsense.

Mainly because it didn't go anywhere.

why would it need to go anywhere? DS2's "shards of Manus" story was nicely concluded in the DLCs. "Crown of the Ivory king" basically tells you that not all of the reincarnated shards turn into power-lusting demonic bitches.

 

[Black Angel]

DS2 is actually pretty good high fantasy fluff minus the "shards of Manus" nonsense.

But those nonsense you're talking about are heavily tied to the main theme of the DLCs, and it's part of what made it much more intriguing than the base game's obsession with the curse, the first flame yadda yadda

 

[Silverfish]

Nah, the base game's lore was more interesting because, barring a few references (and of course Nashandra), it was its own thing. Tying DS2 closer to its predecessor, particularly via a character as lame as Manus, is probably the biggest misstep of the Crown trilogy.

 

[Black Angel]

Nah, the base game's lore was more interesting because, barring a few references (and of course Nashandra), it was its own thing. Tying DS2 closer to its predecessor, particularly via a character as lame as Manus, is probably the biggest misstep of the Crown trilogy.

How is Manus lame?

 

[Silverfish]

Goofy appearance (never dug the dark magic reindeer monkey), no plot relevance despite appearing in the intro cinematic and a pretty good boss fight that From had so little faith in, they gave players an item to just negate his magic attacks outright. There's a reason the DLC's named after Artorias instead.

 

[Wunderbar]

From just needed some kind of a monster to serve as a boss of the DLC, so they came up with Manus. Other than that he's not very memorable.

 

[Black Angel]

Goofy appearance (never dug the dark magic reindeer monkey), no plot relevance despite appearing in the intro cinematic and a pretty good boss fight that From had so little faith in, they gave players an item to just negate his magic attacks outright. There's a reason the DLC's named after Artorias instead.

Maybe it's goofy for you because the boss arena is too dark?

Also, we could argue that Manus isn't THE Furtive Pygmy mentioned in the intro cinematic, from how Marvelous Chester didn't specify if it's *a* primeval man or *the* primeval man. For all we know Manus could be the child, the grandchild, or Xth generation not too far from the Furtive Pygmy. And in the chance that Manus *is* THE Furtive Pygmy, then the intro made it clear that he's "...so easily forgotten." and stopped there.

Regarding the Silver Pendant, I'd argue it's there for the same reason they give you the Storm Ruler when dealing with the Storm King in Demon's Souls/Yhorm the Giant in Dark Souls 3. Since I haven't played DeS, and I know Yhorm can be beaten just fine without the Storm Ruler, would you say From have little faith in the Storm King/Yhorm the Giant when they put in the Storm Ruler?
Also, from the lore perspective, think of the Silver Pendant working in the same way as the Covenant of Artorias.
You may think that this is just some kind of lorefaggotry, but like I said, I have no impression that the narrative aspect of Dark Souls 1 being as much of an afterthought as Dark Souls 2&3. It's clear that they put in a lot of effort into crafting the world of Dark Souls 1, and it shows just as much in their narrative aspect.

Finally, the DLC being named after Artorias was most probably for marketing purpose, since Artorias has been hinted at quite clearly through the base game, whereas Manus, let alone The Furtive Pygmy, are mostly nonexistent with the exception of comments made by Kaathe (and even he was still mostly being vague). Would you complain that the final boss for the Crown of the Old Iron King DLC is the Fume Knight, or that the final boss for the Crown of the Sunken King is Elana/Sinh?

 

[The_Mask]

I always thought that the beginning intro was a bedtime story told from the perspective of the rulers. Meaning either giants, or the witches. Humans, in general, were treated worse than cattle.

Gwyn had an elevator specifically made for them. Discrimination.
Nito had their men sacrifice their women and children to him. To the point where so many died that it became a "fountain" of humanity.
Seath experimented on them, with little oversight.
Gwyndolyn lied to them, turning them against each other.

Even the positive ones come across as bitter. Gwynevere married "The Flame God Flann", essentially meaning "was tossed into a fire". And the sun god, the one that probably smiled the most to humans, had such a horrible fate no one talks about him.



In any way, in makes sense to call the first human "so easily forgotten".



And it doesn't matter who Manus is. It matters what he represents. A little taste of the Age of Dark.

Also... may I remind people that it took everyone a second (read as several months) to realize it was Artorias on the cover? Most people initially thought it was your main character.

 

[Black Angel]

And it doesn't matter who Manus is. It matters what he represents. A little taste of the Age of Dark.

There's a difference between the Dark and the Abyss, though. Much like how there's a difference between the Fire/First Flame and the Flame of Chaos. The description on Soul of Manus said this:

Soul of Manus, Father of the Abyss. This extraordinary soul is a viscous, lukewarm lump of gentle humanity.
Ancient Manus was clearly once human. But he became the Father of the Abyss after his humanity went wild, eternally seeking his precious broken pendant

Using that same logic, the Witch of Izalith's Lord Soul also 'went wild' from being used to attempt duplication of the First Flame.

Because if Manus is a little taste of the Age of Dark, then Bed of Chaos/Ceaseless Discharge/Centipede Demon etc etc are the taste of the Age of Fire.

 

[Silverfish]

Maybe it's goofy for you because the boss arena is too dark?

You got it, it's a big problem for me that From partially obscured the design that I didn't like to begin with.

Regarding the Silver Pendant, I'd argue it's there for the same reason they give you the Storm Ruler when dealing with the Storm King in Demon's Souls/Yhorm the Giant in Dark Souls 3. Since I haven't played DeS, and I know Yhorm can be beaten just fine without the Storm Ruler, would you say From have little faith in the Storm King/Yhorm the Giant when they put in the Storm Ruler?

Nah, the Storm Ruler fights are fine. In Demon's it's just a way for non-ranged builds to have a fair shake. In DS3, Yhorm can be beaten without it, but due to his massive hp pool, it's not something you'd want to bother with unless you've got a fully optimized build with all the general purpose damage buffs. DS3 is big on gimmick fights and Yhorm is just another on that list. Which isn't a knock, by the way. I'll take a gimmick boss over the 20 or so Gundyr clones the game spits out otherwise. In neither case does using the Storm Ruler negate the bosses' abilities, making them far, far superior to the silver pendant.

Finally, the DLC being named after Artorias was most probably for marketing purpose, since Artorias has been hinted at quite clearly through the base game, whereas Manus, let alone The Furtive Pygmy, are mostly nonexistent with the exception of comments made by Kaathe (and even he was still mostly being vague). Would you complain that the final boss for the Crown of the Old Iron King DLC is the Fume Knight, or that the final boss for the Crown of the Sunken King is Elana/Sinh?

Artorias was hinted at, but the guy in the intro cinematic wasn't. 10/10.

And, no, I wouldn't complain about the bosses from the DS2 dlc's because they're actually cool. The "B" in B-Team stands for "Best".

 

[Black Angel]

Artorias was hinted at, but the guy in the intro cinematic wasn't. 10/10.

Again, are we 100% absolutely sure that Manus *is* THE Furtive Pygmy? Even Dark Souls 3 made it explicitly clear that there's more than one pygmy, which is pretty faithful to their own original Dark Souls 1 lore when they didn't specify if it was *a* primeval man or *the* primeval man through Marvelous Chester's dialogue.

And, no, I wouldn't complain about the bosses from the DS2 dlc's because they're actually cool. The "B" in B-Team stands for "Best".

Why is it every time someone made some kind of comments regarding Dark Souls 2, its fanboys became all defensive like this? Dude, I wasn't even criticizing it, not even in the slightest.

 

[Silverfish]

Again, are we 100% absolutely sure that Manus *is* THE Furtive Pygmy?

Yeah.

Why is it every time someone made some kind of comments regarding Dark Souls 2, its fanboys became all defensive like this? Dude, I wasn't even criticizing it, not even in the slightest.

It was a joke, dude. As was "The dlc's named after Artorias for a reason". You're trying too hard.