Having now finished Dark Souls 3, but not yet watched every VaatiVidya analysis or completed every NPC questline, I thought I'd give my thoughts on the matter. Of course this will be packed with spoilers, but you should know that from the title already.
In general I'm rather underwhelmed. In comparison with Dark Souls III, I ultimately find the ideas in the story of Dark Souls II more intriguing. In Dark Souls II it's quite clear that the cycle of fire has been going on for eons, so much that nearly no names or locations from the first game are ever mentioned, and the geography has changed completely. The references to DS1 were more subtle, and therefore more satisfying to realize. But in Dark Souls III it's all very obvious: everyone seems to remember who Gwyn, Quelana, or what Izalith and Oolacile were, despite Oolacile being even in the first game beyond ancient and effectively erased from memory. Then there's the recycling of Siegmeyer, the very blatant Artorias references related to the Abyss watchers, the recycling of Anor Londo and the final-final boss being just Gwyn again. Despite the marketing hinting at this installment being the end of the cycle of fire (granted, this might be completely changed via some super-secret thing you can do) it feels more like just a retread of Dark Souls I. At the end when my character sat beside the bonfire with the awesome Berserk moon in the sky, I was like "Is that it? That's really it?"
Dark Souls II, with its DLC, focused on a different aspect of the Dark Souls mythology: instead of being about linking the fire, it was about the people (or beings) around it, and what happens to them. This came in the role of the different queens: Elana, Nadalia, Nashandra and Alsanna, and respectively what happened to their kingdoms. Them being the remains of Manus from the DS1 DLC IMO made it very intriguing. Dark Souls III just goes "collect souls, get to final baddie, link fire" again. Which, granted, Dark Souls II did as well, but the DLC shifted the focus and painted a broader picture around the conflict. I've yet to discover a similar feel in Dark Souls III.
Whereas Dark Souls II's story was ultimately rather fanfiction-y, at least it established a new thing: that linking the fire is a cycle, and that the line of lords who have linked the fire extends back hundreds of generations. Dark Souls III, from what I've seen from it, doesn't seem to build on this premise all that much. Like I said, it feels like a retread. No new elements get established and the situation doesn't seem to be changed all that much.
Where most of this feeling comes from is that there was no expository character to be found this time. Dark Souls had Frampt and Kaathe, and Dark Souls II had the Emerald Herald. In DSIII all the vital exposition seems to be spread evenly among all the NPCs, meaning every one (seemingly) has about one or two lines explaining the situation in any way, which can be really easy to miss. I went out of my way to try to talk through each NPC's dialogue at vital points in the game, and still came up practically empty-handed.
Your thoughts?
In general I'm rather underwhelmed. In comparison with Dark Souls III, I ultimately find the ideas in the story of Dark Souls II more intriguing. In Dark Souls II it's quite clear that the cycle of fire has been going on for eons, so much that nearly no names or locations from the first game are ever mentioned, and the geography has changed completely. The references to DS1 were more subtle, and therefore more satisfying to realize. But in Dark Souls III it's all very obvious: everyone seems to remember who Gwyn, Quelana, or what Izalith and Oolacile were, despite Oolacile being even in the first game beyond ancient and effectively erased from memory. Then there's the recycling of Siegmeyer, the very blatant Artorias references related to the Abyss watchers, the recycling of Anor Londo and the final-final boss being just Gwyn again. Despite the marketing hinting at this installment being the end of the cycle of fire (granted, this might be completely changed via some super-secret thing you can do) it feels more like just a retread of Dark Souls I. At the end when my character sat beside the bonfire with the awesome Berserk moon in the sky, I was like "Is that it? That's really it?"
Dark Souls II, with its DLC, focused on a different aspect of the Dark Souls mythology: instead of being about linking the fire, it was about the people (or beings) around it, and what happens to them. This came in the role of the different queens: Elana, Nadalia, Nashandra and Alsanna, and respectively what happened to their kingdoms. Them being the remains of Manus from the DS1 DLC IMO made it very intriguing. Dark Souls III just goes "collect souls, get to final baddie, link fire" again. Which, granted, Dark Souls II did as well, but the DLC shifted the focus and painted a broader picture around the conflict. I've yet to discover a similar feel in Dark Souls III.
Whereas Dark Souls II's story was ultimately rather fanfiction-y, at least it established a new thing: that linking the fire is a cycle, and that the line of lords who have linked the fire extends back hundreds of generations. Dark Souls III, from what I've seen from it, doesn't seem to build on this premise all that much. Like I said, it feels like a retread. No new elements get established and the situation doesn't seem to be changed all that much.
Where most of this feeling comes from is that there was no expository character to be found this time. Dark Souls had Frampt and Kaathe, and Dark Souls II had the Emerald Herald. In DSIII all the vital exposition seems to be spread evenly among all the NPCs, meaning every one (seemingly) has about one or two lines explaining the situation in any way, which can be really easy to miss. I went out of my way to try to talk through each NPC's dialogue at vital points in the game, and still came up practically empty-handed.
Your thoughts?
is an entirely different individual than Siegmeyer. While the existence of Catarina in this timeline itself is weird, the character's presence, not necessarily so. Given his relationship to Yhorm however, we can definitely surmise that they aren't the same person. But the fact that Catarina exists at all in another Lord of Cinder's cycle is kind of odd, and like many things, contradicts Dark Souls II. Though Drangleic was just plain weird in many respects, so that might not be saying much.
