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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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?

 

[EvilRoy]

I think a lot of the problems come from the period of time between game releases honestly. A lot of stuff in DS1 was left up to interpretation, but in the time since it was released people got attached to their interpretations and don't really like the shake-up/new information that DS3 offers. The wikis are pretty bad for it right now, since they had kind of set in stone the few 'right' interpretations, and they are no longer necessarily accurate given new information.

Although a lot of stuff offered by DS3 doesn't mesh with existing DS1 theories, I haven't actually found anything that specifically contradicts stuff from the first game. A lot of the issues people have are also just an unfortunate result of a normal choice based play system. In DS1 you had the choice to kill Gwyndolin, serve him, never find him, or kill all his friends and leave him alone. If you wanted to have a game in the same timeline/physical region (as opposed to DS2) then the writer necessarily must choose one of those ends. It may cheapen your experience from DS1 slightly to know there was a 'right' way to play, but it would be significantly worse for a writer to have to simultaneously imply the noted options or pretend Gwyndolin never existed.

As to the linking the fire thing - I think that was the point. Time moves on, shit changes, no matter how hard you try this world, like everything else in the history of the universe, will die.

There isn't actually much reason to believe, however, that an age of dark never happened - from what I've seen so far it really seems just as possible that it did come about, some stuff happened, and some guy linked up the flame to get a new age of fire. After all, we don't get to fight "King Buttfucker", in his mismatched firekeeper dress/Catarina helm as a lord of cinder. Or to put it less stupidly - none of the lords of cinder have backstories that realistically match the DS1 backstory.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

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 makes plenty of sense because the entire point is that nothing you do really changes anything. At least that's the interpretation I've garnered from almost every From game I've ever played. The only Souls-ish game where it is clear your decisions at the endgame mattered is probably Demon's Souls.

 

[Fox12]

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 makes plenty of sense because the entire point is that nothing you do really changes anything. At least that's the interpretation I've garnered from almost every From game I've ever played. The only Souls-ish game where it is clear your decisions at the endgame mattered is probably Demon's Souls.

That's not my major complaint, though. In fact, I kind of like that theme. My complaint is that DS3 contradicts DS1. They would have been better off going with the DS2 route, where everything in the first game is forgotten. Then they could do whatever they wanted. Instead they made half of the first game non-canon.

I think a lot of the problems come from the period of time between game releases honestly. A lot of stuff in DS1 was left up to interpretation, but in the time since it was released people got attached to their interpretations and don't really like the shake-up/new information that DS3 offers. The wikis are pretty bad for it right now, since they had kind of set in stone the few 'right' interpretations, and they are no longer necessarily accurate given new information.

Although a lot of stuff offered by DS3 doesn't mesh with existing DS1 theories, I haven't actually found anything that specifically contradicts stuff from the first game. A lot of the issues people have are also just an unfortunate result of a normal choice based play system. In DS1 you had the choice to kill Gwyndolin, serve him, never find him, or kill all his friends and leave him alone. If you wanted to have a game in the same timeline/physical region (as opposed to DS2) then the writer necessarily must choose one of those ends. It may cheapen your experience from DS1 slightly to know there was a 'right' way to play, but it would be significantly worse for a writer to have to simultaneously imply the noted options or pretend Gwyndolin never existed.

As to the linking the fire thing - I think that was the point. Time moves on, shit changes, no matter how hard you try this world, like everything else in the history of the universe, will die.

There isn't actually much reason to believe, however, that an age of dark never happened - from what I've seen so far it really seems just as possible that it did come about, some stuff happened, and some guy linked up the flame to get a new age of fire. After all, we don't get to fight "King Buttfucker", in his mismatched firekeeper dress/Catarina helm as a lord of cinder. Or to put it less stupidly - none of the lords of cinder have backstories that realistically match the DS1 backstory.

I'm not upset that my interpretations were wrong, though. I'm upset that the games contradict themselves. Gwyn's son was stripped of his deific status, and yet in DS 3 he's still a god of war. Ornstein left Anor Londo, even though we killed him in Dark Soul's. He wasn't an optional boss fight, you have to fight him no matter what. I just can't figure out how they could have let this happen when it would have been so easy to fix : /

 

[Sleepy Sol]

I'm not upset that my interpretations were wrong, though. I'm upset that the games contradict themselves. Gwyn's son was stripped of his deific status, and yet in DS 3 he's still a god of war. Ornstein left Anor Londo, even though we killed him in Dark Soul's. He wasn't an optional boss fight, you have to fight him no matter what. I just can't figure out how they could have let this happen when it would have been so easy to fix : /

The first point is explained (for me) simply in the fact the he is The Nameless King. We will never know his name because his deific status was stripped, but his power is not something that he lost due to that. His name is erased from memory, not his strength.

The second one is more of something that could be left up to interpretation and is more of a wrinkle story-wise for sure. I personally just think the Ornstein in Anor Londo that we fight is in some measure a product of Gwyndolin's illusion. But that particular way of interpreting things has a few flaws you could point out as well (how much 'actual' power could Gwyndolin bestow to an illusion, for one). Anyways, this is how I view things in that case: the Dragonslayer Armor you find following The Nameless King's boss fight is that of the real Ornstein, who began to search for the Nameless King to assist in staving off the Age of Man, got told "lol no" when he found him, and got bodied. There's not much of a contradiction if that's how things went down.

What confuses me a bit more is when exactly everything happens pre-Dark Souls 3. But convoluted timeline stuff that isn't even in the game doesn't really make me dislike the game's explanations of lore as a whole.

 

[Asclepion]

I don't see why the Souls games have to take place in the same world at all. The series could easily be done in the style of Final Fantasy or Tales where every game is it's own setting.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

The second one is more of something that could be left up to interpretation and is more of a wrinkle story-wise for sure. I personally just think the Ornstein in Anor Londo that we fight is in some measure a product of Gwyndolin's illusion. But that particular way of interpreting things has a few flaws you could point out as well (how much 'actual' power could Gwyndolin bestow to an illusion, for one). Anyways, this is how I view things in that case: the Dragonslayer Armor you find following The Nameless King's boss fight is that of the real Ornstein, who began to search for the Nameless King to assist in staving off the Age of Man, got told "lol no" when he found him, and got bodied. There's not much of a contradiction if that's how things went down.

What confuses me a bit more is when exactly everything happens pre-Dark Souls 3. But convoluted timeline stuff that isn't even in the game doesn't really make me dislike the game's explanations of lore as a whole.

You either straight up stole my way of thinking for Ornstein, or you and I came to the same conclusion.


The only thing that, for me, implied that Solaire was related to Gwyn was fan stuff. I saw nothing in the game that made me go, "Yeah, I can see him being related." It's clear he firmly believes in the sun, but that's it.
Meanwhile, the Nameless King makes a lot more sense. For one, he's using the spear that all the smashed sun statues have. Two, he's packing some serious lightning skills, and Solaire was only using the spear. Finally, and this is where the real kicker comes in, we now have a very real reason for why Nameless King got his deity statues stripped. He sided with the enemy. A few of the high lightning spells, as well as the fact that he shows up riding a drake, imply that he eventually chose to protect the dragons instead of fighting him. Seeing as Gwyn and the others were trying to wipe him out, that's high treason right there. So of course he's going to be erased from the records, because you don't want you firstborn son bringing that level of shame to your legacy.

As for Gwyndolin, he was a secret boss fight, and therefore optional. It's easy to assume that the official storyline is that the Chosen Undead just didn't fight him, and he, as well as the Darkmoon Knight, were left alone to continue their duty.

As for the endings being invalidated, that's explained in Dark Souls II. Gwyn broke the world when he didn't let the Fire die naturally, and because of that the world has been trapped in a cycle. While I have only gotten the Dark Lord ending in 3 so far, I got the feeling just from that one that the cycle is broken this time.

Now what I want to know is who is Yorshka and where did she come from?

 

[EvilRoy]

I'm not upset that my interpretations were wrong, though. I'm upset that the games contradict themselves. Gwyn's son was stripped of his deific status, and yet in DS 3 he's still a god of war. Ornstein left Anor Londo, even though we killed him in Dark Soul's. He wasn't an optional boss fight, you have to fight him no matter what. I just can't figure out how they could have let this happen when it would have been so easy to fix : /

I dunno about the Nameless King stuff, since I haven't actually read any of his lore yet (got his shit, never read the descriptions), but Orenstien was probably just an illusion. If you snap and kill Gwyn, most if not all of the enemies in anor londo disappear. Basically everyone but the giant blacksmith is gone, which I guess explains why he was lonely - always wondered why he didn't just chill with the Boss Guys.

 

[loa]

Guess you didn't pay attention to firelink shrine, the flameless shrine, the kiln of the first flame and the story of dark souls 1.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

You can't hold an ending being invalidated/non-canon as a black mark. That will ALWAYS be the case in ANY game that has both multiple endings and a sequel (or an existing canon).

One ending for The Force Unleashed 1 or 2 had the player strike down Vader and the Emperor, which we know from the movies couldn't be.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution you could argue is entirely irrelevant since we already know how that world turns out 30 years later.
KotOR 1 and 2 have multiple endings and allow character creation, tho SWTOR establishes canon for both.

Anyway, that point aside, I don't have a huge amount to contribute to this discussion since I'm not particularly big on DS lore. I liked the nods to Gwyndolin and Gwynevere in DS3 insofar as it was a nod to the characters from DS1 and a continuity to the same. TBH, I didn't think 3 had any great world, at least not compared to DS2.

DS2 for starters had an end boss that was an important character in the world, not generic final boss #7. Nashandra was a pivotal character in the world of DS2 and we see her looking nice in her throne room. Then in the grave saints we see Velstadt and finally, the King (these two further tie into the Fume Knight in the DLC).

We the player, navigate this Kingdom from its heights to its depths and see the result of the King's hubris and Nashandra's plotting. We even get fun "flashbacks" seeing the giants' battles. DS3 had none or very little of that. The Lords didn't seem particularly significant to the world, except maybe Aldrich and the Lothric. I also think that the "dark" ending is silly hard to get, at least compared with the first alternate ending. It was the coolest one tho.

I had issues with DS3, but not story wise. I think some of the bosses were unbalanced and cheap, others were a bit too easy. Straight swords are so much better than any other weapon class it's not even funny (I'm mostly disappointed at how crappy the partizan was after it was my joint favourite from DS2), I don't like how long it takes to drink estus and that you only get 50% as a phantom, everything just seems weaker compared with DS2. I didn't feel any of the nuance between weapons nearly as well as DS2 did it.

Overall I did like it but DS2 is still better in terms of overall area design and bosses, combat and weapons/weapon balance. I LOVED Irithyll, I thought the town was magnificent and was only disappointed that there were indoor/underground sections. It's my favourite area in the trilogy, those streets were wonderful to walk thru and fight in. I like the changes to magic, ie. mana bar, no need to stack cards, etc, tho overall it is a bit shittier to use, the weapon buffs in particular. I absolutely approve of the better coop system with passwords and no level limits, massive improvement (it's still a horrible, clunky system but it's a marginally less shit horrible, clunky system). And there were some brief moments where I did get the DS combat thrill of swish-roll-stab. Worth playing, not as good as DS2.

 

[Souplex]

You're missing a few key plot elements:
1. The ages are cyclical. The fire has been lit and extinguished many times. Ages of fire were sustained, and ended.
2. The dead from previous ages rise in other ages. This is why Ornstein and Gwyndolin got back after the Chosen Undead rammed spears through them. Ornstein to go find his former master, and Gwyndolin to get eaten.

I'm honestly fine with the Nameless king. We assumed Solaire (Or Ornstein, and apparently some people assumed Andre for some reason) was the firstborn because we were provided no other plausible candidate. All we have on the guy was that he was Gwyn's firstborn, he was a god of war, and his name was removed from history because he did something bad. Betraying the gods and siding with the dragons seems plenty bad to me.

 

[default]

That's what happens when you take something that was supposed to be self-contained and are forced to expand it in ways it was never meant to be. A sequel to the world presented in Dark Souls 1 does not make a lot of sense. A sequel to Demon's Souls would make even less. I understand that 'everything runs in cycles' but the entire point of that premise is that you finish on that point with your character making an essentially worthless decision and leave the world, not SHOW those arduous, samey cycles again and again. I would have so much preferred the Souls series to be divided into seperate worlds, have them be called 'Dragon Souls' and 'Ashen Souls' and 'David's Souls' or something. But whatever, money and brand recognition.

I really hate the tacky fanservice in 2 and 3. When Siegmeyer 2.0 rose up into view on that elevator in DkS3 I had the powerful and distict impression of a sitcom 'live audience' cheering and clapping as a character walks into the room. Almost as tacky as Bandai Namco's cringey marketing campaigns. HOW MUCH ARE YOU GOING TO DIE? LOOK HERE'S BEN AFFLECK LOOKING SAD THINKING ABOUT DARK SOULS. The only trailer of theirs I have ever liked for the Souls series has been that 'True Colours' one, and that was essentially because it was so different and had a wonderful contrast, because it had some god-damn taste and understanding of atmosphere. That was the trailer that actually convinced me to upgrade my PC especially so I could play the game.

Sigh, I know I'm being a bit ranty. I just very much care about Demon's Souls and Dark Souls and feel like they have been a little bit mishandled over the past four years. At the end of the day we do have a collection of fantastic games. I just feel like From's hand was forced in ways they would have never done otherwise, especially when it came to making Dark Souls a series as opposed to self-contained 'Souls' games.

 

[MysticSlayer]

That will ALWAYS be the case in ANY game that has both multiple endings and a sequel (or an existing canon).

No, not all the time. Prince of Persia: Warrior Within allowed you to either kill Kaileena or the Dahaka. The Two Thrones treated both as canon. It's just that one (Prince killed Kaileena) was an in-universe legend while the other (Prince kills Dahaka) was in-universe history. And of course BioWare spent almost all of last generation on two franchises that will change events and/or the backstory of events based on player action in past games.

 

[Janaschi]

Here are my understandings of the matter; take them or leave them as you will:|

1) Should a Dark Lord arise, and forsake their duty to sacrifice themselves to the flame, the Age of Man would not have been an immediate change - it still would have taken time for the fire to die off, and the entire time, the gods would have been manipulating other undead, in order to have their way. So maybe there was an Age of Dark, and then the flame was reignited behind the Dark Lord's back. Especially since we do not know if Frampt is alive, although that is irrelevant, since in DSIII, it has been confirmed that there are humans/undead that follow the teachings of the primordial serpents.

2) While this has not been confirmed yet, we did meet an Ornstein that was taken by the abyss in DSII. Since the timeline is convoluted in each of the areas that we visit throughout the series, it is a very likely prospect that for other undead champions (remember that everyone from Lautric to Kirk were also progressing the undead mission in their own timelines), Ornstein and Smough had not yet been challenged, and as such, lived longer, allowing for additional timeline events to happen. So my theory, is that Ornstein, having not been challenged in certain timelines, abandoned his station, and was eventually taken by the abyss (as he now has powers of the dark).

3) It was never canon as to whether or not the protagonist in DS ever fought Gwyndolin. Regardless of whether they relit the flames, or became the Dark lord. And since he did not become sick until the time when humans officially began taking over by rebelling against the gods, just as the gods did with the dragons, that means that he was devoured long after the events of DS.

4) It is canon that Gwynevere was married to the god of war, which is why she was no longer residing at Anor Londo. And since I highly doubt that the royal bloodline involved incest, I do not believe Solaire to be the latest god of war. He might have been the original, but I say that he is definitely not the latest one.

Edit: I looked it up, and I am actually completely wrong about Gwynevere: she married the flame god; not the god of war. Oops - my bad! Either way, it is still likely that there has been more than a single god of war, especially if Solaire really was stripped of his deific status, and as such, had his name, and even his existence wiped from history.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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...

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I also think that the "dark" ending is silly hard to get, at least compared with the first alternate ending. It was the coolest one tho.

I got the Dark Ending on accident when I didn't mean to. It just happened organically because of the way I had played the game, and I appreciated that, even though when it was happening I was in my seat going "no...wait...NO, I didn't mean that!"

 

[EvilRoy]

I'm not upset that my interpretations were wrong, though. I'm upset that the games contradict themselves. Gwyn's son was stripped of his deific status, and yet in DS 3 he's still a god of war. Ornstein left Anor Londo, even though we killed him in Dark Soul's. He wasn't an optional boss fight, you have to fight him no matter what. I just can't figure out how they could have let this happen when it would have been so easy to fix : /

I dunno about the Nameless King stuff, since I haven't actually read any of his lore yet (got his shit, never read the descriptions), but Orenstien was probably just an illusion. If you snap and kill Gwyn, most if not all of the enemies in anor londo disappear. Basically everyone but the giant blacksmith is gone, which I guess explains why he was lonely - always wondered why he didn't just chill with the Boss Guys.

Not Gwyn, Gwynevere.

Gwyn is the old bearded man with a sword.
Gwynevere is the amazing chest ahead.

I was actually talking about Gwyndolin. But I catch all call them Gwyn because fuck that family for their smartass naming scheme. Nobody does that in real life - even in cultures with family houses they give people distinct names or titles to be referred to by.

 

[sXeth]

I had the impression that Archdragon Peak and the Nameless King were all a "vision quest" going on in your mind while you meditated at the cliffside. Or at most, another bubbled alternate timeline like Dark Firelink.

You access it using a technique from another area directly connected to an alternate timeline. You never physically travel there, you just sort of pop in after meditating. If you die before finding a bonfire, you don't go back to your old bonfire, it just resets to the beginning of your "vision", landing back at the base of the peak.

You criss-cross into alternate timelines/worlds everytime you're summoned/invading. Doesn't seem overly far-fetched that perhaps you invaded a world with drastic differences in the process of visiting Archdragon. Possibly Havel's, since he's hanging out there in non-phantom state,