Dark Souls 2 sequel or prequel?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by natanaj (375 posts) -

A lot of people are saying that dark souls 2 is a prequel. They believe this because they think that the city in the trailer is Anor Londo, and the character you play as is Solaire.

I personally think this is rubbish and that you will be playing during the dark age, but there is plenty of evidence supporting both arguments. So now I ask you flood. What would you prefer? A sequel or a prequel?


For those who have not heard of dark souls 2 yet.

#2 Posted by Profilia (2094 posts) -
Sequel makes more sense simply because it's called Dark Souls II. I don't really care what it ends up being though, as long as it's fun.
#3 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Weren't all of the dragons considered dead in Dark Souls though? And that trailer certainly had a dragon in it... I'd say based off that, it looks like a prequel.

#4 Posted by MasterBrief (54 posts) -

I thought it kind of looked more like a prequel but the only reason I could see the character as Solaire is because of how his blood boils when it hits the ground. Other than that it doesn't look like him. As for the dragon, there was also the red one in Dark Souls and they were all supposed to be dead. I think it could really be either or but I don't really care as long as it's awesome.

#5 Posted by Twin-Blade (6795 posts) -

Weren't all of the dragons considered dead in Dark Souls though? And that trailer certainly had a dragon in it... I'd say based off that, it looks like a prequel.

Vari3ty

Weren't there multiple dragons in Dark Souls?

#7 Posted by MasterBrief (54 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Weren't all of the dragons considered dead in Dark Souls though? And that trailer certainly had a dragon in it... I'd say based off that, it looks like a prequel.

Twin-Blade

Weren't there multiple dragons in Dark Souls?

Well there was the Hellkite dragon which was alive. There was the 2 undead dragons and then wyrms. So only one living one but I don't know if they considered him a Drake since you get the Drake Sword from his tale or if a Dragon is different from a Drake in the Dark Souls world.

#8 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Weren't all of the dragons considered dead in Dark Souls though? And that trailer certainly had a dragon in it... I'd say based off that, it looks like a prequel.

Twin-Blade

Weren't there multiple dragons in Dark Souls?

I think there's a difference in the Dark Souls world between dragons and creatures like drakes and wyverns. I could be wrong, but the opening cutscene(skip to 2:25) of the game certainly implied the dragons were dead.

#9 Posted by Profilia (2094 posts) -
Weren't there multiple dragons in Dark Souls?Twin-Blade
Sure. The Everlasting Dragon in Ash Lake, the Gaping Dragon and Seath the Scaleless. The most noticeable difference I've seen is that the dragons have four wings, while drakes have two. Based on that, I don't think the dragon in the trailer is a "true" dragon, probably a drake. They don't really seem all that different though...
#10 Posted by Minishdriveby (9983 posts) -
Prequel makes the most sense to me since the story splits off so much at the endings.
#11 Posted by Minishdriveby (9983 posts) -
[QUOTE="Twin-Blade"]Weren't there multiple dragons in Dark Souls?deershadow
Sure. The Everlasting Dragon in Ash Lake, the Gaping Dragon and Seath the Scaleless. The most noticeable difference I've seen is that the dragons have four wings, while drakes have two. Based on that, I don't think the dragon in the trailer is a "true" dragon, probably a drake. They don't really seem all that different though...

The dragon in the trailer looks like Kalameet which was the last everlasting dragon. Seath and Kalameet are the only two dragons that come from the Age of Ancients. The everlasting Dragon, gaping dragon, and Drakes are just perverse descendants of the everlasting dragons. There are a couple theories that say these dragons are disciples of the dragon covenant since the purpose of that covenant is too transcend life by turning into an ancient dragon.
#12 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22470 posts) -

No way in hell is the guy in the trailer Solaire. He's not radiant enough

#13 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

I don't know but I hope it's a sequel based on the evil ending of the game. A game where you run around in nothing but a black void sounds awesome.

#14 Posted by Minishdriveby (9983 posts) -

I don't know but I hope it's a sequel based on the evil ending of the game. A game where you run around in nothing but a black void sounds awesome.

IndianaPwns39
Who says that's the evil ending?
#15 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

I don't know but I hope it's a sequel based on the evil ending of the game. A game where you run around in nothing but a black void sounds awesome.

Minishdriveby

Who says that's the evil ending?

Just the way I interpreted it, and the way I played that particular character. One thing I love about Dark Souls is that it has it's own set of rules and tons of lore to delve into, but the endings are open enough to let the player decide what happened. Like, The Age of Dark doesn't necessarily mean that the entire world is going to be a black void like The Abyss, just the way I pictured it.

However, the reason I see killing Gwyn and not linking the fire "evil" is because of a few reasons. The first one being that there really isn't a lot left to protect humanity anymore. At the beginning of the game, I got the sense that the dragons were straight up evil, and the gods came together to overthrow them and bring prosperiety to the world. After time, they lost their minds and held onto these old beliefs that long since faded and cursed the world with undeath. Gwyn lost his power, Seathe went nuts, and the witches I don't know... turned into a tree? So the world was all chaotic while Gwyn desperately held onto this little remaining fire.

And despite overthrowing the gods and all that, I mean, what's really stopping the world from going into chaos? I don't know about you, but I don't trust one of those freaking serpents. Kaithe and Frampt both had conspicuous attitudes and all of them worshipping me at the end left me feeling uncomfortable. Besides that, there's still an eternal dragon left alive that could bring about a lot of chaos with his ancient foes gone.

Finally, The Age of Dark = The Age of Man, and men are a$$holes.

In the very least I feel that linking the fire strengthens it and brings about the possibility of prosperiety that existed when a stronger Gwyn held onto it. I felt that's the reason Gwynevere asked you to link the fire, and she seemed trustworthy... or maybe I was too distracted and she was just as devious as Frampt and Kaithe.

Of course you can make the argument that linking the fire is a bad thing since it keeps the whole undead curse thing going, and that the Dark Lord ending is good since you're essentially freeing humanity, in a sense.

And this is why I don't want them streamlining the story.

#16 Posted by Mcspanky37 (1695 posts) -
They already announced it's a new story, so...
#17 Posted by Minishdriveby (9983 posts) -

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"][QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

I don't know but I hope it's a sequel based on the evil ending of the game. A game where you run around in nothing but a black void sounds awesome.

IndianaPwns39

Who says that's the evil ending?

Just the way I interpreted it, and the way I played that particular character. One thing I love about Dark Souls is that it has it's own set of rules and tons of lore to delve into, but the endings are open enough to let the player decide what happened. Like, The Age of Dark doesn't necessarily mean that the entire world is going to be a black void like The Abyss, just the way I pictured it.

However, the reason I see killing Gwyn and not linking the fire "evil" is because of a few reasons. The first one being that there really isn't a lot left to protect humanity anymore. At the beginning of the game, I got the sense that the dragons were straight up evil, and the gods came together to overthrow them and bring prosperiety to the world. After time, they lost their minds and held onto these old beliefs that long since faded and cursed the world with undeath. Gwyn lost his power, Seathe went nuts, and the witches I don't know... turned into a tree? So the world was all chaotic while Gwyn desperately held onto this little remaining fire.

And despite overthrowing the gods and all that, I mean, what's really stopping the world from going into chaos? I don't know about you, but I don't trust one of those freaking serpents. Kaithe and Frampt both had conspicuous attitudes and all of them worshipping me at the end left me feeling uncomfortable. Besides that, there's still an eternal dragon left alive that could bring about a lot of chaos with his ancient foes gone.

Finally, The Age of Dark = The Age of Man, and men are a$$holes.

In the very least I feel that linking the fire strengthens it and brings about the possibility of prosperiety that existed when a stronger Gwyn held onto it. I felt that's the reason Gwynevere asked you to link the fire, and she seemed trustworthy... or maybe I was too distracted and she was just as devious as Frampt and Kaithe.

Of course you can make the argument that linking the fire is a bad thing since it keeps the whole undead curse thing going, and that the Dark Lord ending is good since you're essentially freeing humanity, in a sense.

And this is why I don't want them streamlining the story.

You do know Gwynevere was an illusion created by Gwyndolin right? And Gwyn was already dead by the time you get to him; he's just a mindless husk. Everyone just lies to you in the game. I like to think that you fall into a false sense of comfort from the games mechanics, i.e. lighting bonfires to restore health and potions, that you forget that you're strengthen the gods that enslaved man by feeding humanity to the flames. Along with listening to gods, undead (Solaire), and Frath who works for Gwyn, whom are trying to further their agenda you get caught up in the greatest lie in videogames since Cake in Portal.
#18 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -
in lordran, time is distorted :P
#19 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"] Who says that's the evil ending?Minishdriveby

Just the way I interpreted it, and the way I played that particular character. One thing I love about Dark Souls is that it has it's own set of rules and tons of lore to delve into, but the endings are open enough to let the player decide what happened. Like, The Age of Dark doesn't necessarily mean that the entire world is going to be a black void like The Abyss, just the way I pictured it.

However, the reason I see killing Gwyn and not linking the fire "evil" is because of a few reasons. The first one being that there really isn't a lot left to protect humanity anymore. At the beginning of the game, I got the sense that the dragons were straight up evil, and the gods came together to overthrow them and bring prosperiety to the world. After time, they lost their minds and held onto these old beliefs that long since faded and cursed the world with undeath. Gwyn lost his power, Seathe went nuts, and the witches I don't know... turned into a tree? So the world was all chaotic while Gwyn desperately held onto this little remaining fire.

And despite overthrowing the gods and all that, I mean, what's really stopping the world from going into chaos? I don't know about you, but I don't trust one of those freaking serpents. Kaithe and Frampt both had conspicuous attitudes and all of them worshipping me at the end left me feeling uncomfortable. Besides that, there's still an eternal dragon left alive that could bring about a lot of chaos with his ancient foes gone.

Finally, The Age of Dark = The Age of Man, and men are a$$holes.

In the very least I feel that linking the fire strengthens it and brings about the possibility of prosperiety that existed when a stronger Gwyn held onto it. I felt that's the reason Gwynevere asked you to link the fire, and she seemed trustworthy... or maybe I was too distracted and she was just as devious as Frampt and Kaithe.

Of course you can make the argument that linking the fire is a bad thing since it keeps the whole undead curse thing going, and that the Dark Lord ending is good since you're essentially freeing humanity, in a sense.

And this is why I don't want them streamlining the story.

You do know Gwynevere was an illusion created by Gwyndolin right? And Gwyn was already dead by the time you get to him; he's just a mindless husk. Everyone just lies to you in the game. I like to think that you fall into a false sense of comfort from the games mechanics, i.e. lighting bonfires to restore health and potions, that you forget that you're strengthen the gods that enslaved man by feeding humanity to the flames. Along with listening to gods, undead (Solaire), and Frath who works for Gwyn, whom are trying to further their agenda you get caught up in the greatest lie in videogames since Cake in Portal.

I actually didn't know that. Beating the game a dozen times and discussing it on forums since it's release, I honestly had no idea about Dark Anor Londo.

Either way, I think both endings can be argued to be good or evil depending on point of view. There are always secrets to be learned, like how the cake isn't a lie in Portal :P

#20 Posted by MadVybz (2797 posts) -

I don't know but I hope it's a sequel based on the evil ending of the game. A game where you run around in nothing but a black void sounds awesome.

IndianaPwns39

There is no truly 'evil' ending in Dark Souls. You either link the fire and continue the the curse of the undead or you choose to leave it and wait for the end of everything. Both outcomes are rather grim if you ask me, but not blatantly 'evil'.

#21 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

I don't know but I hope it's a sequel based on the evil ending of the game. A game where you run around in nothing but a black void sounds awesome.

MadVybz

There is no truly 'evil' ending in Dark Souls. You either link the fire and continue the the curse of the undead or you choose to leave it and wait for the end of everything. Both outcomes are rather grim if you ask me, but not blatantly 'evil'.

Yes, we established this in the last couple posts.

I won't make a joke regarding Dark Souls ever again :P