From Software The Dark Souls II Megathread™

[Kanedias]

Well, the choice of Dark Lord or Link the Fire does matter, I don't care what Vaati says. For example I believe that Dark Souls 2 takes places during an Age of Dark, started by Vendrick himself. This is heavily implied by two things, Shalquoir compares you to how Vendrick was at the start, and then we learn via Chancellor Wellager that Vendrick vanquished the Old Ones long ago and "built a kingdom upon their Souls". In this age there are no Gods around (check the description of the Crescent Axe for further evidence), human kingdoms flourished and advanced, etc. It's the age of Man, like Kaathe said. I believe this is also why bonfires have no keepers, they are weaker (explaining the change in Estus mechanics) and some of them are destroyed (the Primal Bonfires).

while i agree with most of what you said, i'd like to point out a couple of things about the bolded part:
a) we know from DaS1 that one or more Ages of Dark happened in DaS1's history, when the world had it's fair share of Gods. thus Age of Dark <=/=> absence of Gods
b) from what we know of Gods, they were entities with really powerful souls, and since quite a few of those souls are still "active", it's quite safe to say that those same Gods are still there... which is kinda cool in a way 'cause that actually makes them more godlike than "simple entities with powerful souls". it's actually those very souls (the ones from the first flame) that are the "true" Gods, with the "reincarnations" only being avatars of the current age?

There were no Ages of Dark in DaS1's history, just New Londo and Oolacile falling to the Abyss. Kaathe does talk like an Age of Dark was starting but Gwyn immediatly relighted the First Flame by linking it, so there were no true Ages of Dark, in my opinion.

And yes, the powerful Souls are still there, but "gods" were way more present in the Dark Souls 1 world (even though most were missing at the time of the game because of how the Flame was fading), with Lordran being the Land of the Lords, there was Anor Londo, city of the gods, etc. In the Dark Souls 2 world we only have Nashandra plus the Old Ones resurfacing, mostly thanks to human actions, too (the Duke, Old Iron King, etc). The powerful beings are still there but not to the extent of Dark Souls 1's Age of Fire, where they had cities, humans worshipped them, etc.

I mentioned the Crescent Axe because in Dark Souls 1 it was said to be a blessed weapon of the Way of the White, (which worshipped Gwyn, Allfather Lloyd and all) and in this game the description reads:

"A bronze greataxe with a crescent shaped blade."
Its long handle gives the weapon great reach. One senses that this axe was once imbued with a sacred power, but only traces of it remain.
Perhaps those who blessed this axe are no longer with us."

 

[DragoFireheart]

I almost want to claim that The Age of Dark was the canon ending and the Throne of Want is the Second Flame. The reasoning being if you burn yourself for the Flame, it's eventually going to go out again, which would just lead to the Age of Dark anyways.

 

[Kanedias]

Also, the best lore was this badly translated plot synopsis we got from the Dark Souls website by the time of the DLC's announcement (they removed this gem later, sadly)

You will face many unique, despair-inducing monsters. Survival means accepting you will die, learning from death and overcoming the ultimate challenge to reclaim your soul.The demons who rule this world gain their extraordinary power from the King’s Crowns. To retrieve the King’s Crowns and reach the flame of the world, you will have to face the White King Gwen and his knights, the witch Izarith and her evil daughters, the first dead, Nit, and the immortal and nameless shadow dwarves.

When you begin this adventure, you are soulless. You must emerge from the abyss to reclaim your soul in order to reach the land of the living. Make social connections, win games, find eggs and solve riddles—and increase your soul energy until you get your entire spiritual essence back. The gauge at the bottom of your dashboard numerically measures the amount of soul energy you have earned. Check your gauge each day to keep track of how much soul energy you have. Do your best to get your numbers high enough so you can say once and for all: Be gone, evil forces, my soul is mine and I am alive!

 

[aris]

why so emotional?

Because you don't need a video to explain that DS2 story is just a more mudded and watered down story of DS1. But that's not a problem which I would have with the story or the video. My problem would be that video makes DS setting boring.

Vaati uses description of dull ember (just one crafting item from the game) to tell us that there always can be life, and the world of DS is cyclic because someone can always rekindle the flame. So no matter what you do, rekindle the fire or not, the world will continue to exist. Yet he then proceeds to say that ashes of first rekindler, an undead from DS1, are there in the game, thus making rekindling ending the "canon". Well, how can you say if DS world is cyclic and your choice doesn't matter if "dark" ending never happened?

This isn't just taken from the description of the dull ember, the blacksmith you give the ember too also mentions that flame burn, fade and then are born again. Straid mentions the rise and fall of kingdoms, which also links to the fire, and probably several other NPCs I don't remember at the top of my head. This is one of the running themes in DS2, not just something that is mentioned in the description of the dull ember. The whole dark souls series is at its core about the contrast between light and dark. And also, there is no canon ending to DS1, he didn't say that it was the choice *you* made, it was the choice of some undead. His theory is that if you usher in the age of dark, which was the age before the age of flame, then someone will eventually link the fire and begin a new age of flame, which was possibly the age that led to Drangleic.

I he also hinted heavily at Drangleic might just be what Lordran is called now, something that does have support in many of the characters dialogue lines. Which I find interesting.

As for cycle, ages of dark and flame endlessly repeating like night and day, I'm not sure I'm all that exited about that, but a story is more than its premise: and there are plenty of substories in DS2 that I *am* interested in. Your claim that natural things can't be interesting, is extremely fallacious though.

But let's follow flow of videos a bit more. I think first thing when people would roll their eyes is statement that everyone in DS2 is "lead by a desire". Solaire from DS1 was but a single character, yet he probably was lead by desire more than anyone in DS2. The speculation afterwards just points at a sign of poor writing - when you want to mess with player's head instead of providing answers. DS1 obfuscated things by providing you with hard facts and names, but holding back on chronology of events and the context. Just the movie in DS1 has enough hard facts to allow player intuitively understand what is happening. DS2? "You don't know". "You will never know". I got to admit game is very effective with that promise - most players indeed would not know what they did and why after killing final boss, or probably just won't care, which is even worse.

About solaire, uh, what's your point. This is a video about DS2, and not DS1. Why would he mention solaire? And how does that invalidate his point about the characters in DS2? Did he say this was unique to DS2?

"DS1 obfuscated things by providing you with hard facts and names, but holding back on chronology of events and the context." And DS2 does the exact same thing, it might not answer every question, but at least most of them. I'm getting the feeeling you didn't spend much time on trying to understand the intricaties of the DS2 story.

Sadly Vaati's video then goes onto a path of explaining everything with "Fate". Worked for ancient greeks, but because DS2 makes us accept our fate, someone long ago battling it does not make me care about the plot more. And then I think it becomes a little bit ridiculous. Nashandra, a powerful boss apparently can't get the key because she's afraid of fireflies! It's women who sing? Wait, but what about Demon of Song? Wasn't it that creature who was obviously singing? Vendrick fled and created multiple barriers, and he waited for player to get his soul and his items... even if in game, you can't get them unless you killed his hollow shell... for it is written in fate. Why not make player feel the guiding hand of Vendrick as he travels around then, why not make him leave more gifts and clues?

Of course song you hear is the girls sing! They spell it out to you at several points in the game! Did you think it was the demon that was singing? I would really recommend you to replay the game, and actually pay attention this time, not that I think it would change much, since you seem to have made up your mind a long time ago. Also, don't be silly, the theory is that nashandra, being a being of death would be unable to cross amana's shrine because the singing and the fireflies would render her inert, not that she is "afraid" of them. It might be far fetched, but it does give a posssible explonation for why nashandra doesn't just go and get the ring herself. And is also strengthened by the strange fact that you find a milfanito trapped in Drangleic castle which the queen currently has power over. Vendrick wanted a powerful human to get his ring, you don't get a powerful human by leaving quest compasses and gifts in the way. Also, he fled, you don't think about much else other than impeding the track of your pursuer.

What was the whole point of kingdom's backstory and giants if what ruined it eventually is the curse from first game?

See below

What is the story of the queen and her arrival, aside from a cursed picture and pointing fingers at Manus? She should have been an interesting character, but in game there's little to learn about her.

She manipulates the king to attack the giants, I would guess in order to gain the giant kinship so that she could access the throne of want.

Who were the Four Ones now? Why are they alive? Didn't Vendrick vanish them?

Come on! Once you have defeated the 4 great ones, go talk to shalquir, she pretty much spells out to you who each one is. Vendrick probably did banish the lost sinner, and possibly the iron king, but why shouldn't they be alive for this reason?

If there are so many places undead were specifically sent to, what's up with fairly nonsensical level design and minor bosses, should't it be a challenge to reach those places?

What's nonsensical about it? And it's challenging enough to reach the lost bastille, no? Surely more challening that reaching your local super market?

With story from video in mind, it becomes even harder to understand what levels in DS2 are supposed to represent, exept maybe for Lost Bastille.

The purpose of each area is spelled out to you in the very game, you don't even need the video to know this. The forest of the last giant was the place where battle between the giants and the human of drangleic took place. No-man's wharf was a port used to transfer undead to lost bastille, huntsman copse was a battle royale style area, where you hunted and tormented undead for fun. Drangleic castle was the place where the king and the queen lived, Shrine of amana, was probably a shrine to the god of the dead, where important people were sent through before going to there final resting place in the crypt (not a mancave that vendrick have, I believe), which then became the the route of escape of king vendrick and so on...

If I remember correctly, the devs said that DS2 would be more about the nature of the curse, in this seems to be exactly what the DS2 story is about.[/quote]

 

[Shadenuat]

A quick one since I want to eat

Of course song you hear is the girls sing!

But on my second playthrough, I killed them. Song was still there and it became stronger as you reach for demon.
As for the fireflies, it's not far fetched, it's just bollocks - even when they sing, demons can still attack you, and if it's such an ultimate weapon... why not ask Undead to kill the girls? Nashandra was powerful enough to capture at least one. That would be easy - "brave undead, they are long lost their cause and turning hollow, please end their misery".
Also when you free the caged one she vanishes and you have your song again suddenly. It really just seems like "it's a mystary!" trick to me, just a bit of horror for the player.

 

[Kanedias]

There's another Milfanito at the Rise of the Dead past the Demon of Song.

Also the water demons or whatever they are called still attack you when the song is on but only after you scare the Fireflies by being close (you see them scatter away).

 

[aris]

A quick one since I want to eat

Of course song you hear is the girls sing!

But on my second playthrough, I killed them. Song was still there and it became stronger as you reach for demon.
As for the fireflies, it's not far fetched, it's just bollocks - even when they sing, demons can still attack you, and if it's such an ultimate weapon... why not ask Undead to kill the girls? Nashandra was powerful enough to capture at least one. That would be easy - "brave undead, they are long lost their cause and turning hollow, please end their misery".

That would imply that there are others, or a bug. I'm 100% sure that it is the girls that are singing. The song demon is probably making some sound, since the girl does tell you "you silenced that thing" or something like that. But its not the singing. Of course, there are more unexplainable things, like when you free the one in the castle, she sings as you take the elevator down, or pate saying from seemingly nowhere "oooh, that will leave a nice scar", after opening a trapped chest in a room he gives you the key to. Both of these moments are creepy as fuck though, and were probably intended as such.

Also, it isn't the singing itself that renders the undead inert and docile, its the fireflies. But as the girl says herself "the song makes the little ones dance", the little ones being the fireflies. If you notice as you approach the demon, it's not actually because you approach it, that it attacks you, but because you scare away the fireflies around it that makes it aggressive. You can see the whole time, that when the monsters attack you, they don't have fireflies around there heads. It's entirely consistent, and actually a very nice little subtle detail I'm guessing not many noticed (me included), but which the devs clearly put a lot of thought in.

 

[Shadenuat]

But I did not approach demons. They often aggro on you even if you follow the path. For example, right after first hut, they will probably aggro before or after knight protectors.
If devs did put some thought into it, these things would be a lot more important, and instead of battling hellhole of magic missiles, knights, frog-demons and other shit, it would make sense to add some sort of neutral path to explore and not battle everything.

 

[aris]

But I did not approach demons. They often aggro on you even if you follow the path. For example, right after first hut, they will probably aggro before or after knight protectors.
If devs did put some thought into it, these things would be a lot more important, and instead of battling hellhole of magic missiles, knights, frog-demons and other shit, it would make sense to add some sort of neutral path to explore and not battle everything.

As you approach the hut, the girls stop singing (as they tell you when you enter the hut). Take a close look at what happens with the fireflies. They stop dancing, and the undead become aggressive. I even walked through amana's shrine today to test its consistence, it's entirely consistent, and very well thought out by the devs.

The cave right before the second bonfire, was probably made to try to make the player aware of the role of the fireflies. There are 4 monsters there with fireflies above their head, they stare directly at you, but they do nothing. Even when you're killing the monster right in front of them. Only when you scare the fireflies away that are above their heads, to they attack.

 

[Shadenuat]

As for cycle, ages of dark and flame endlessly repeating like night and day, I'm not sure I'm all that exited about that, but a story is more than its premise: and there are plenty of substories in DS2 that I *am* interested in. Your claim that natural things can't be interesting, is extremely fallacious though

You agree that yin yang stuff is boring but you call my argument fallacious? Why? I spent quite a few sentences to explain exactly how I feel about cycle and why I believe it lessens the impact of your decisions.

About solaire, uh, what's your point.

That he is written better and his placement in game makes more sense, and his story left more impression on players than anything DS2 throws at them.

I'm getting the feeeling you didn't spend much time on trying to understand the intricaties of the DS2 story.

Well I'm not a fan of clicking on a talking cat all the time. In DS1 a lot of stuff became obvious to me by simply following the levels.

Vendrick wanted a powerful human to get his ring, you don't get a powerful human by leaving quest compasses and gifts in the way.

That doesn't make any sense. If you want to achieve something, you got to have a plan. See PST and how your previous incarnations carefully hidden various objects and clues to make at least one of them survive and battle Trascendent one (or tried to fuck you up).

And fuck the fireflies, seriously. Again, if they're such a big deal, why not play Undead so he kills all the girls? And the guys above also made a few points like who is stronger than who and why the theory doesn't hold up.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Personally, I'm not even convinced the ending had anything to do with linking the fire directly. If it does, then the whole ordeal is inconsistent and confusing for no good reason.

There's an obvious change in terminology and thematic content when it comes to the Chosen Undead's ascension between DaS1 and DaS2. The first game never actually refers to either you or Gwyn as rulers or kings, but rather as mythical heroes, saviors, or gods. Gwyn isn't Agamemnon, he's Zeus (he even fucking throws lightning in the intro cutscene). You're not Orestes, you're Prometheus. Linking the fire has nothing to do with actual governance. Only time you are addressed as ruler of anything is, somewhat ironically, in the Dark Lord ending.

DaS2, on the other hand, is all about rule and governance. First thing Emerald Herald says to you is "Are you the next monarch?". Her very succinct command for you is to "Seek the King" (with a capital "K", of course). There's tons of references to various rulers in the game's lore, to kingdoms rising and falling. Giant's Kinship, a mysterious and important item, has a description which is a cryptic musing on the relation between rulers and their thrones (and we have no clue why you actually need it to claim the Throne of Want). That description basically poses the question whether the position of a king broadens or narrows their view, which is curious, because the last thing EH says during the ending cutscene (as you sit on the throne) is "What lies ahead, only you can see.", and Shalquoir says something similar if you talk to her close to the end.

My point being, linking the fire isn't related to any of this in DaS1, you basically burn away, feeding the fire. It doesn't seem to grant any special powers or insight. So all of this is new. If anything, I'd be more inclined to believe that ascending the Throne of Want is more akin to becoming the Dark Lord, except then it makes no sense why EH (who was created to end the curse) would want you to do so.

So maybe the Throne is its own thing, and the decision whether to link the fire or become the dark lord happens offscreen, after the ending cutscene. But then, what's the point of it, why does everyone place so much importance on it. Even Nashandra wants it, and she definitely doesn't want to link the fire. Thematically, it's definitely associated with Dark, with want being equivalent to desire, and consistently linked to dark and humanity.

I don't know, it may just be a confusing mess, but the game is really particular about all this, and brings it up very consistently. So I have a feeling that it's not just a repeat of DaS1 with the same choice, there's some kind of new factor.

 

[darkpatriot]

Both the milfanato and the song demon are singing. The singing after the fist bonfire is the milfinato(This singing continues after the Song Demon is killed), the singing after the third bonfire is the song demon(This singing stops after killing the song Demon and is the noise that the milfinato are referring to). The song demon is mimicking the milfinato song. Perhaps not mimicking, perhaps the song demon has something to do with the creation of the milfinato and is capable of the same song. Perhaps a failed attempt at creating the milfinato.

 

[Shadenuat]

Personally, I'm not even convinced the ending had anything to do with linking the fire directly. If it does, then the whole ordeal is inconsistent and confusing for no good reason.

I think that they wrote an interesting (or at least unique, or a new) story, a parody on DS1 but with new stuff and new theme (kings, rulers, thrones), but had to rewrite it to be more like Dark Souls, so they added a ton of fanservice, bonfires, firekeepers and so on.

Simply put, I think that they were not sure what to do with what they have and were re-writing it up until the end, when game came out.

oth the milfanato and the song demon are singing. The singing after the fist bonfire is the milfinato(This singing continues after the Song Demon is killed), the singing after the third bonfire is the song demon(This singing stops after killing the song Demon and is the noise that the milfinato are referring to). The song demon is mimicking the milfinato song. Perhaps not mimicking, perhaps the song demon has something to do with the creation of the milfinato and is capable of the same song. Perhaps a failed attempt at creating the milfinato.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. What is that creature and what is it doing there I didn't get it. Cool level though.

 

[darkpatriot]

I know it has been said before on this thread but I want to reemphasize it; the biggest problem with the story of DS2 is that it is basically a rehash of DS1. The story, and the discovery of it, loses its impact the second time around. Of course this is largely a problem of being a sequel. One of the amazing things about DS1 was how the gameplay mechanics tied into the story so well. That is how it should be in games. Gameplay supports narrative and narrative supports gameplay. By keeping(or just slightly modifying) almost all the gameplay mechanics they are forced to keep many of the narrative elements the same. Such as the undead curse(respawning mechanic) the acquisition of souls(Level up mechanic), Bonfires, ect...

Unfortunately this hindered them from really doing something interesting and new with the narrative. I'm sure they could have done better(several parts of this game seem to indicate changes relatively late in the game development and that probably includes, as Shadenuat says, narrative changes) but I think this fact greatly hindered them in crafting an interesting and new narrative. Not that I think the story is shit, but I feel it is just serviceable and doesn't really stack up to DS1.

 

[praetor]

Well, the choice of Dark Lord or Link the Fire does matter, I don't care what Vaati says. For example I believe that Dark Souls 2 takes places during an Age of Dark, started by Vendrick himself. This is heavily implied by two things, Shalquoir compares you to how Vendrick was at the start, and then we learn via Chancellor Wellager that Vendrick vanquished the Old Ones long ago and "built a kingdom upon their Souls". In this age there are no Gods around (check the description of the Crescent Axe for further evidence), human kingdoms flourished and advanced, etc. It's the age of Man, like Kaathe said. I believe this is also why bonfires have no keepers, they are weaker (explaining the change in Estus mechanics) and some of them are destroyed (the Primal Bonfires).

while i agree with most of what you said, i'd like to point out a couple of things about the bolded part:
a) we know from DaS1 that one or more Ages of Dark happened in DaS1's history, when the world had it's fair share of Gods. thus Age of Dark <=/=> absence of Gods
b) from what we know of Gods, they were entities with really powerful souls, and since quite a few of those souls are still "active", it's quite safe to say that those same Gods are still there... which is kinda cool in a way 'cause that actually makes them more godlike than "simple entities with powerful souls". it's actually those very souls (the ones from the first flame) that are the "true" Gods, with the "reincarnations" only being avatars of the current age?

There were no Ages of Dark in DaS1's history, just New Londo and Oolacile falling to the Abyss. Kaathe does talk like an Age of Dark was starting but Gwyn immediatly relighted the First Flame by linking it, so there were no true Ages of Dark, in my opinion.

Your ancestor claimed the Dark Soul and waited for Fire to subside.
And soon, the flames did fade, and only Dark remained.
Thus began the age of men, the Age of Dark.

that's pretty explicit, imo. sure he could be referring to Oolacile.

And yes, the powerful Souls are still there, but "gods" were way more present in the Dark Souls 1 world (even though most were missing at the time of the game because of how the Flame was fading), with Lordran being the Land of the Lords, there was Anor Londo, city of the gods, etc. In the Dark Souls 2 world we only have Nashandra plus the Old Ones resurfacing, mostly thanks to human actions, too (the Duke, Old Iron King, etc). The powerful beings are still there but not to the extent of Dark Souls 1's Age of Fire, where they had cities, humans worshipped them, etc.

I mentioned the Crescent Axe because in Dark Souls 1 it was said to be a blessed weapon of the Way of the White, (which worshipped Gwyn, Allfather Lloyd and all) and in this game the description reads:

"A bronze greataxe with a crescent shaped blade."
Its long handle gives the weapon great reach. One senses that this axe was once imbued with a sacred power, but only traces of it remain.
Perhaps those who blessed this axe are no longer with us."

"not the the extent" "way more present" "still there" etc.. i don't see any "absence" there they may or may not be worshipped (Seath wasn't, 4Kings weren't, and for Nito and the Witch it's dubious at best), but they're still there. they're virtually the same beings, reincarnated. and we have no idea about the plethora of other gods, just like in DaS1. you can choose.. 10 or so for the name-engraved ring, and there are others explicitly named as gods of stuff (like Nar Alma, the ones on serpent rings etc). i see no absence of gods in DaS2 (other than not being an AL equivalent. but it was already abandoned and nearly deserted in DaS1)

and what with the crescent axe? you mean to say that clerics or other high-ranking followers of the Way of White couldn't have blessed the weapon? only gods can do that? is there any evidence to support that?

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Personally, I'm not even convinced the ending had anything to do with linking the fire directly. If it does, then the whole ordeal is inconsistent and confusing for no good reason.

I think that they wrote an interesting (or at least unique, or a new) story, a parody on DS1 but with new stuff and new theme (kings, rulers, thrones), but had to rewrite it to be more like Dark Souls, so they added a ton of fanservice, bonfires, firekeepers and so on.

Simply put, I think that they were not sure what to do with what they have and were re-writing it up until the end, when game came out.

That would be a real pity, because I found those parts of the story the most compelling - if there was any reason I wanted to continue with the game from a narrative perspective, it was to finally meet Vendrick, who is described as this mythical figure, a great king who peered into the essence of the soul, implicitly also causing his own downfall in the process (not unlike King Allant in DeS, come to think of it). I was disappointed when EH reveals that it's all about the First Flame again.

On an unrelated note, a cool idea for a Dark Souls sequel would be the reverse of DaS1 - we're in the Age of Dark (not necessarily making any ending to DaS1 canon, as someone will eventually make that choice), and somebody repeats the Witch of Izalith's mistake - they try to relight the First Flame through some method, except it kind of works, fucking up the world in many ways, but also bringing back things like bonfires. Then the player would, again, get to decide whether it's worth it to try and feed the new flame, maybe beginning a new kind of Age of Fire, or they could extinguish it, going back to what was. It would also give the simple gameplay mechanic of lighting and kindling bonfires major narrative significance.

 

[potatojohn]

Finished the game as a pure caster. It was actually not very hard I have to say. Granted I used NPCs as distractions for bosses but I did beat the pursuer twice alone. I used mostly Dark Orb for mobs and (Great) Lightning Spear for bosses.

 

[aris]

No souls game is hard when you play it as a caster, especially not as a hex caster. Now try beating DS2 with a pure strength or dex build without summoning help at any instance.

Also NG+ is significantly harder in many of the encounters.

 

[Stonewolf]

Not sure why would anyone play this game in PVE as a mainly magic user, it's just trivial and rather boring. BTW. Why would you bother with lightning spears when you can just 3-shot bosses with great resonant soul?

 

[Niektory]

Fucking LARPers.

Spoiler

 

[abija]

Does the game do something wierd with the netcode when you are locked on the target? I have no issues in PvE to play without lock since mouse is actually usable in DS2 but in PvP, if lock is not on, I need to guess where to swing in thin air to actually land a hit.

 

[potatojohn]

Not sure why would anyone play this game in PVE as a mainly magic user, it's just trivial and rather boring. BTW. Why would you bother with lightning spears when you can just 3-shot bosses with great resonant soul?

Huh? Why would it be more trivial or boring than a melee char? I think it's rather the opposite. Hiding behind a shield and baiting attacks is boring.

 

[darkpatriot]

Not sure why would anyone play this game in PVE as a mainly magic user, it's just trivial and rather boring. BTW. Why would you bother with lightning spears when you can just 3-shot bosses with great resonant soul?

Huh? Why would it be more trivial or boring than a melee char? I think it's rather the opposite. Hiding behind a shield and baiting attacks is boring.

That is only one melee build and it isn't a viable strategy against many(Most of them unless the character is built right) bosses.

Magic is much easier than melee. Melee is more involved regarding learning enemy patterns(Since you need to get in range of their attacks) and how best to attack them. Magic characters are able to beat bosses that are challenging as a melee character by just staying out of range and spamming attack spells until the boss is dead.

 

[Stonewolf]

Huh? Why would it be more trivial or boring than a melee char? I think it's rather the opposite. Hiding behind a shield and baiting attacks is boring.

Because all you have to do is stand back and spam spells with occasional dodge. Not to even mention the crazy damage output from sorceries and hexes.

Also, real men dont use shields.

 

[Echo Mirage]

Is there some special reason why players are jumping to their deaths from the Majula cliffs near the Emerald herald that I am not privy to?