I wanted to make a general thread where people will post speculations and latest developments of the game.

From what we have seen in the trailer so far, this game may be set in the exact same universe as the first Dark Souls but in a different time period. Proven by the fact that by the time the Chosen Undead starts his or her adventures, dragons are extinct (Sans the Everlasting Dragon in Ash Lake) and the trailer clearly shows off a couple of dragons. Also we get to see a vista of what appears to be the Anor Londo Castle on top of mountains.

What I hope for in this is basically the player being alive during the rule of Gywn and possibly serving under him or his Four Knights (Artorias, Ornstien, Cirian and Gough), the creation of the demons and the Bed of Chaos, and possibly Seath not being batshit insane.

According to this translated press release it will be set in "an unfamiliar world", whatever that means. I'm guessing it only means they're using new setpieces. If I were to make a guess I would assume they went with the "bad" ending of Dark Souls as canon, and you end up fighting the old hero as the final boss. Maybe they even add integration between the games, although that's probably pretty unrealistic.

I hope that the story takes place after the Bonfire has been rekindled or extinguished completely. If Dark Souls II is a prequel I'll be very, very disappointed. FROM is more creative than that.

But for argument's sake, let's just say they confirm that DS2 takes place after the first game, whether it's immediately or a hundred or two hundred years later, doesn't matter. I personally want two worlds to visit. I want to visit a new land with a new adventure to be had, but I also want FROM to take us back to Lordran for an objective or two. Think of it like the Ishimura from Dead Space 2. A really haunted kind of "I've been here before" walk down memory lane. I would very much like to visit someplace iconic just to see how it's changed in the time I've been away.

I'd also like to see a more creative Painted World by Aramis. And of course a story that is less obtuse than what is currently in Dark Souls. Yeah yeah, item descriptions blah blah blah. That's world building though, not a story. I want FROM Software to really lean into the fascinating world they built and blow the doors off of everybody's expectations.

Dark Lord ending should be canon, as it was the best ending.

Also the "good" ending. Check the file names for the ending videos, it's true.

@Oldirtybearon said:

I hope that the story takes place after the Bonfire has been rekindled or extinguished completely. If Dark Souls II is a prequel I'll be very, very disappointed. FROM is more creative than that.

But for argument's sake, let's just say they confirm that DS2 takes place after the first game, whether it's immediately or a hundred or two hundred years later, doesn't matter. I personally want two worlds to visit. I want to visit a new land with a new adventure to be had, but I also want FROM to take us back to Lordran for an objective or two. Think of it like the Ishimura from Dead Space 2. A really haunted kind of "I've been here before" walk down memory lane. I would very much like to visit someplace iconic just to see how it's changed in the time I've been away.

I'd also like to see a more creative Painted World by Aramis. And of course a story that is less obtuse than what is currently in Dark Souls. Yeah yeah, item descriptions blah blah blah. That's world building though, not a story. I want FROM Software to really lean into the fascinating world they built and blow the doors off of everybody's expectations.

I completely agree. Dark Souls had lore out the ass, but no story unless you dug really really deep into nearly everything and assumed heavily. The problem with making it a sequel is you must choose which ending was canon. Did the Chosen undead allow for the bonfire to burn for longer or did he allow the darkness to spread? I understand that he was only prolonging the inevitable with rekindling the bonfire but still. I may be wrong but a lot of what I am seeing does point towards the game being a prequel rather than a sequel, such as the dragons. I could be wrong, and I would be happy either way.

It's going to be Dark Lord ending for sure, I saw no gods living and man seem to reign the world after the abyss took over. I bet this is hundreds of years after the first game. Can't say much more than that but one thing is for sure, I haven't been this excited about a game in years. I feel like a kid all over again.

I wonder if it's coming to PC

I wonder if it's coming to PC

@Alexandru: The Website says Ps3, 360 and PC. So yes it is! Rejoice!

http://www.darksoulsii.com/

I never cared at all about the story in Dark Souls, and it's one of my favorite games of all time. It was strictly about the mechanics for me, and I loved every minute of it. It would be fine to see them work more story into the game this time, if that's where they want to take it. I just hope it feels natural and doesn't get in the way.

Winner: Everyone

@Puflwiz said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

I hope that the story takes place after the Bonfire has been rekindled or extinguished completely. If Dark Souls II is a prequel I'll be very, very disappointed. FROM is more creative than that.

But for argument's sake, let's just say they confirm that DS2 takes place after the first game, whether it's immediately or a hundred or two hundred years later, doesn't matter. I personally want two worlds to visit. I want to visit a new land with a new adventure to be had, but I also want FROM to take us back to Lordran for an objective or two. Think of it like the Ishimura from Dead Space 2. A really haunted kind of "I've been here before" walk down memory lane. I would very much like to visit someplace iconic just to see how it's changed in the time I've been away.

I'd also like to see a more creative Painted World by Aramis. And of course a story that is less obtuse than what is currently in Dark Souls. Yeah yeah, item descriptions blah blah blah. That's world building though, not a story. I want FROM Software to really lean into the fascinating world they built and blow the doors off of everybody's expectations.

I completely agree. Dark Souls had lore out the ass, but no story unless you dug really really deep into nearly everything and assumed heavily. The problem with making it a sequel is you must choose which ending was canon. Did the Chosen undead allow for the bonfire to burn for longer or did he allow the darkness to spread? I understand that he was only prolonging the inevitable with rekindling the bonfire but still. I may be wrong but a lot of what I am seeing does point towards the game being a prequel rather than a sequel, such as the dragons. I could be wrong, and I would be happy either way.

The "dragons" you saw were not dragons, but drakes. I know they look like what we think dragons are, but in the world of Dark Souls those are drakes. Dragons have serpent tails for legs like Seath. The two dragons you see in the trailer don't have that. They have four legs.

Also, I think I'm totally fine with FROM choosing a canon ending. Especially since they'd pick the one that leaves the world in a far more interesting place to explore. I'm guessing Dark Lord. That said, why does the old man voice over call the hero knight undead? Whether you light the bonfire or let it die, the curse of the undead is broken and there are no more. It'd be interesting to see if Kaathe/Frampt just lied through their big ol' buck teeth about that whole deal.

And what's with the woman in the cloak? Her and the Knight appeared to be intimate. A lover? Party member? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!?!?!?!?

from my observation of the trailer multiple times , rigth at the start you see the undead guy open his eyes looking rather hollowed , and it looked as if he was standing there asleep (also looks like he is in the kiln sort of) .. also the blood dripping out of his armor etc ,lookked like it had just starrted flowing again or something , mabye hes been reborn , and some underterminable time has passed since the bonfire was rekindled.

i dunno , also is that anastacia or rhea .. looks just as forlorn as either of them heh.

but yeah .. the prequel idea has less viability imho , at least any events taking place in it would ultimately not matter as much as merely redefine the lore for the original dark souls , where as anything post linking the fire/dark lord ending (also witht he dark lord ending i believe someone else could easily have come along and linked the fire later thus making both endings possibly canon)

also im calling the snowy hole in the cliffs , with apparent birds nests around it , either this is some velka related area , or its the new trading crow location ..

anywaaaay im DTF

Not to be the negative nancy, but I'm just gonna call this now and I REALLY hope I'm wrong. This is the point in the Souls franchise where things go wrong. Whether the game is just flat out bad, disappointing, too "casualized", etc. I just have this bad feeling. Also I'm not really putting much stock in this being current gen, but if it is that'd be supremely disappointing.

@kishinfoulux: I wouldn't say it'll be outright bad, but the trailer kind of says "hey we have more money to make this sequel," which kind of makes me worried that Dark Souls 2 won't be clunky but charming and creative like the first game, and instead just be mediocre.

@kishinfoulux said:

Not to be the negative nancy, but I'm just gonna call this now and I REALLY hope I'm wrong. This is the point in the Souls franchise where things go wrong. Whether the game is just flat out bad, disappointing, too "casualized", etc. I just have this bad feeling. Also I'm not really putting much stock in this being current gen, but if it is that'd be supremely disappointing.

Oh yeah probably.

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Hate the name, I wanted another _______ souls game, like desperate souls, dead souls, or something.

@Oldirtybearon said:

The "dragons" you saw were not dragons, but drakes. I know they look like what we think dragons are, but in the world of Dark Souls those are drakes. Dragons have serpent tails for legs like Seath. The two dragons you see in the trailer don't have that. They have four legs.

That was what I was thinking before. But what about Kalameet? He was the last of the dragons, he was large in size and had four legs like the dragons on the trailer. While (Dark Souls) Drakes are generally smaller with only two legs. I also considered those dragons may have been Wyverns, but they are spikey and also have two legs. I don't know what the fuck was going on with Seath.

EDIT: Not to mention that the dragons have an eye in the middle of their head just like Kalameet.

@kishinfoulux: We were all thinking it but we were to afraid to say it :(

@Turambar said:

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Rhea is very much alive in my game. If I remember right her death is dependent on maintaining her purpose. As long as she has spells to sell to you she will remain in the Undead Church. I killed Petrus as soon as I bought all of his stuff.

I would say the game takes place in another part of the world. There are many human kingdoms mentioned in the games lore and I would like to visit them. I would also like to check back in with Anor Londo and see what it's up to since we can see it in the trailer. I don't think time is that important as the good Sun Bro tells us that time is in flux in Lordran, but I guess the same wouldn't be so for the human settlements.

I'm a bit hyped that a person who worked on Monster Hunter and Resident Evil Outbreak is now directing the game, but man the announcement of dedicated servers gets me extremely hyped. My only problem was that trailer was just so god awful, I literally thought it was Dragon Age 3 while rolling my eyes then my mouth just dropped seeing the title.

@golguin said:

@Turambar said:

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Rhea is very much alive in my game. If I remember right her death is dependent on maintaining her purpose. As long as she has spells to sell to you she will remain in the Undead Church. I killed Petrus as soon as I bought all of his stuff.

I would say the game takes place in another part of the world. There are many human kingdoms mentioned in the games lore and I would like to visit them. I would also like to check back in with Anor Londo and see what it's up to since we can see it in the trailer. I don't think time is that important as the good Sun Bro tells us that time is in flux in Lordran, but I guess the same wouldn't be so for the human settlements.

That's not a potential outcome. That's just not finishing her storyline. That's like saying "Siegmeyer doesn't die in my game because I just never talked to him after killing the Chaos Eaters"

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Turambar said:

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Rhea is very much alive in my game. If I remember right her death is dependent on maintaining her purpose. As long as she has spells to sell to you she will remain in the Undead Church. I killed Petrus as soon as I bought all of his stuff.

I would say the game takes place in another part of the world. There are many human kingdoms mentioned in the games lore and I would like to visit them. I would also like to check back in with Anor Londo and see what it's up to since we can see it in the trailer. I don't think time is that important as the good Sun Bro tells us that time is in flux in Lordran, but I guess the same wouldn't be so for the human settlements.

That's not a potential outcome. That's just not finishing her storyline. That's like saying "Siegmeyer doesn't die in my game because I just never talked to him after killing the Chaos Eaters"

But you do talk to him after killing the Chaos Eaters and he stays alive. He gives you the speckled ring. I believe I did that on my first playthrough before I knew about the titanite slab. He has 3 paths. He can live by killing all the chaos eater, he kills himself if he's below 50% health, and he dies in ash lake if he's above 50% health.

I never finished Dark Sould, sadly couldn't get by the dual boss, which is a shame because that game was bloody amazing, one of the best I've ever played. My only hope, is that there aren't any spiders in the new game, I literally can't play games with spiders in them. Other than that, I know it will be awesome as all hell. Can't wait!

new director says he "likes to be more direct than subtle" uh oh.

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Turambar said:

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Rhea is very much alive in my game. If I remember right her death is dependent on maintaining her purpose. As long as she has spells to sell to you she will remain in the Undead Church. I killed Petrus as soon as I bought all of his stuff.

I would say the game takes place in another part of the world. There are many human kingdoms mentioned in the games lore and I would like to visit them. I would also like to check back in with Anor Londo and see what it's up to since we can see it in the trailer. I don't think time is that important as the good Sun Bro tells us that time is in flux in Lordran, but I guess the same wouldn't be so for the human settlements.

That's not a potential outcome. That's just not finishing her storyline. That's like saying "Siegmeyer doesn't die in my game because I just never talked to him after killing the Chaos Eaters"

But you do talk to him after killing the Chaos Eaters and he stays alive. He gives you the speckled ring. I believe I did that on my first playthrough before I knew about the titanite slab. He has 3 paths. He can live by killing all the chaos eater, he kills himself if he's below 50% health, and he dies in ash lake if he's above 50% health.

That second one is fake, nobody ever managed to get it off the wikis despite no proof of it ever.

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Turambar said:

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Rhea is very much alive in my game. If I remember right her death is dependent on maintaining her purpose. As long as she has spells to sell to you she will remain in the Undead Church. I killed Petrus as soon as I bought all of his stuff.

I would say the game takes place in another part of the world. There are many human kingdoms mentioned in the games lore and I would like to visit them. I would also like to check back in with Anor Londo and see what it's up to since we can see it in the trailer. I don't think time is that important as the good Sun Bro tells us that time is in flux in Lordran, but I guess the same wouldn't be so for the human settlements.

That's not a potential outcome. That's just not finishing her storyline. That's like saying "Siegmeyer doesn't die in my game because I just never talked to him after killing the Chaos Eaters"

But you do talk to him after killing the Chaos Eaters and he stays alive. He gives you the speckled ring. I believe I did that on my first playthrough before I knew about the titanite slab. He has 3 paths. He can live by killing all the chaos eater, he kills himself if he's below 50% health, and he dies in ash lake if he's above 50% health.

That second one is fake, nobody ever managed to get it off the wikis despite no proof of it ever.

What do you mean it's fake? Here is a video on youtube showing the 3 possibilities with their dialogue.

EDIT: Here is another one showing Siegmeyer killing himself/dying after the fight. I suppose he doesn't just stab himself or anything. He dies from the wounds even though he was talking and seemed fine? It's at 15:30 on that video.

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Turambar said:

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Rhea is very much alive in my game. If I remember right her death is dependent on maintaining her purpose. As long as she has spells to sell to you she will remain in the Undead Church. I killed Petrus as soon as I bought all of his stuff.

I would say the game takes place in another part of the world. There are many human kingdoms mentioned in the games lore and I would like to visit them. I would also like to check back in with Anor Londo and see what it's up to since we can see it in the trailer. I don't think time is that important as the good Sun Bro tells us that time is in flux in Lordran, but I guess the same wouldn't be so for the human settlements.

That's not a potential outcome. That's just not finishing her storyline. That's like saying "Siegmeyer doesn't die in my game because I just never talked to him after killing the Chaos Eaters"

But you do talk to him after killing the Chaos Eaters and he stays alive. He gives you the speckled ring. I believe I did that on my first playthrough before I knew about the titanite slab. He has 3 paths. He can live by killing all the chaos eater, he kills himself if he's below 50% health, and he dies in ash lake if he's above 50% health.

That second one is fake, nobody ever managed to get it off the wikis despite no proof of it ever.

What do you mean it's fake? Here is a video on youtube showing the 3 possibilities with their dialogue.

That HAS to be new. I've done the exact same thing as that guy, in search of that "mythical fourth ending" (though for me it was third), and he has never once offed himself.

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Turambar said:

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Rhea is very much alive in my game. If I remember right her death is dependent on maintaining her purpose. As long as she has spells to sell to you she will remain in the Undead Church. I killed Petrus as soon as I bought all of his stuff.

I would say the game takes place in another part of the world. There are many human kingdoms mentioned in the games lore and I would like to visit them. I would also like to check back in with Anor Londo and see what it's up to since we can see it in the trailer. I don't think time is that important as the good Sun Bro tells us that time is in flux in Lordran, but I guess the same wouldn't be so for the human settlements.

That's not a potential outcome. That's just not finishing her storyline. That's like saying "Siegmeyer doesn't die in my game because I just never talked to him after killing the Chaos Eaters"

But you do talk to him after killing the Chaos Eaters and he stays alive. He gives you the speckled ring. I believe I did that on my first playthrough before I knew about the titanite slab. He has 3 paths. He can live by killing all the chaos eater, he kills himself if he's below 50% health, and he dies in ash lake if he's above 50% health.

That second one is fake, nobody ever managed to get it off the wikis despite no proof of it ever.

What do you mean it's fake? Here is a video on youtube showing the 3 possibilities with their dialogue.

That HAS to be new. I've done the exact same thing as that guy, in search of that "mythical fourth ending" (though for me it was third), and he has never once offed himself.

Check the edit I just made. It was done before the PC version was out.

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Terramagi said:

@golguin said:

@Turambar said:

Some thoughts.

The game does not take place in a post Dark Souls world where the fire did not get linked. For one, we already know that the power of the dark, the abyss, is intimately tied with the power of humanity. We also know, from the DLC, what happens when humanity is left to its own devices: it runs rampant. Second, it cannot be a prequel set in the first age or earlier. The undead plague did not appear until the twilight years of the Age of Fire.

If the game does take place in the same larger world as Dark Souls, it would be most likely that it occurs concurrently to the events in Lordran, but is the story of another undead in another kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom of Baldur? Perhaps its a cat and mouse chase between the fugitive undead and the hunters of the church? In my opinion, it is even more likely that this is a new land, wholly unconnected lore wise to the first two games.

There is the commonality of the term "undead", but that means little without any further information. There is also the fact that the title Demon's Souls was only discarded because of licensing issues, not as a signal of a separation in settings between the first two games of the Soul series.

Also, people wondering if the woman shown could be Rhea or Anastacia, Rhea is dead. Either Petrus kills her or she goes hollow in the Duke's archives. Anastasia is a fire keeper. She is either forever tied to the bonfire if the Age of Fire is still going, or the mass of humanity that crawls like maggots under her skin goes wild if the Age of Dark occurs, leaving her no longer a human being. As for what her presence in the trailer symbolizes for the game itself, I'd say as little as both an Elite Knight and Iron Tarkus sitting around a bonfire in the trailer for the first Dark Souls.

Rhea is very much alive in my game. If I remember right her death is dependent on maintaining her purpose. As long as she has spells to sell to you she will remain in the Undead Church. I killed Petrus as soon as I bought all of his stuff.

I would say the game takes place in another part of the world. There are many human kingdoms mentioned in the games lore and I would like to visit them. I would also like to check back in with Anor Londo and see what it's up to since we can see it in the trailer. I don't think time is that important as the good Sun Bro tells us that time is in flux in Lordran, but I guess the same wouldn't be so for the human settlements.

That's not a potential outcome. That's just not finishing her storyline. That's like saying "Siegmeyer doesn't die in my game because I just never talked to him after killing the Chaos Eaters"

But you do talk to him after killing the Chaos Eaters and he stays alive. He gives you the speckled ring. I believe I did that on my first playthrough before I knew about the titanite slab. He has 3 paths. He can live by killing all the chaos eater, he kills himself if he's below 50% health, and he dies in ash lake if he's above 50% health.

That second one is fake, nobody ever managed to get it off the wikis despite no proof of it ever.

What do you mean it's fake? Here is a video on youtube showing the 3 possibilities with their dialogue.

That HAS to be new. I've done the exact same thing as that guy, in search of that "mythical fourth ending" (though for me it was third), and he has never once offed himself.

Check the edit I just made. It was done before the PC version was out.

Obviously my copy is possessed by a demon then.

@Ley_Lines said:

Hate the name, I wanted another _______ souls game, like desperate souls, dead souls, or something.

Theme song incoming... (you could use the NIN version if you want something slower and darker)

@masterpaperlink said:

new director says he "likes to be more direct than subtle" uh oh.

I think people are going to immediately read into these things badly before seeing what the turn out of it is going to be. I don't think that means that the story is going to be told in a completely straight forward manner like every other game. We're not talking about a completely different developer or anything here and Hidetaka Miyazaki is a Supervisor. I don't know how much control or influence he actually has on the game, but it's people intact that know how to make a "proper" Souls game.

I hope people just don't blow up over some information that they don't like before seeing game play or those things in action. I have a feeling that will be inevitable.

So some theories:

The feathers on the cloak that chick is wearing could mean she's Velka or serves Velka.

The dragon has one eye in the center of its skull, like Kalameet and similar to the symbol of the Dragon Covenant. (This indicates it might predate DaS)

The Mordor area is possibly the Kiln of the First Flame.

The mask wearing duders could be Undead Hunters mentioned in the description for Lloyd's Talisman.

--

The one thing that this got me to realize is that the true ending of Dark Souls is the Kaathe ending. Due to the fact that Dark Souls, taken on a meta level including everyone that's playing, is happening over a long period of time. Everytime someone kindles a flame, they're extending the Age of Fire, but eventually it will come to an end (Kaathe's ending). The Age of Dark is inevitable, so everytime you're stoking the fire, it's just a vain attempt at giving Gwyn a little more time. Whether you're being manipulated or not, the Age of Fire will come to an end eventually and the Age of Man will begin.

e: The woman isn't Anastacia since the woman has brown hair, not blonde.

But Shibuya admits that their approach will be influenced by their individual characters. “I personally am the sort of person who likes to be more direct than subtle,” he tells us. “[Dark Souls II] will be more straightforward and more understandable.” We sympathise if that sort of statement concerns you, but at the same time, we can surely agree that we would all like to see Dark Souls attain as great a presence as The Elder Scrolls.

Dark Souls 2 confirmed for World of Soulscraft casualness.

@KingGiddra: I bet what he's talking about is just things like not hiding important information in item descriptions and hints in dialogues, probably just doing some standard tutorializing instead. While I get that some people like that aspect of the game, I don't really think it affects the fact that the games still have a great and unique combat system, progression/loot system and core gameloop concept. If they start messing with those things I would start to worry, but revealing it's systems better (which is the major "flaw" of the souls games if you ask me) doesn't really matter in the long run as this is stuff anyone that has played through either of the games has already learned a long time ago.

I guess we'll find out if how important obscure game mechanics are to the awesome core of the Souls series.

@Ares42 I 100% hope he's referencing that. Simplifying the game's mechanics in certain areas to make it more accessible is awesome. Making the rules regarding online play clearer while introducing guild mechanics sounds awesome. I get the distinct feeling that isn't what he's getting at, though. I don't want a simplified world and a linear storyline with quest NPCs. That's what TES is for.

Hmm. Maybe I should get it on pc? Was the pc version any better than te console version last time? Although I may have to play on ps3 so I can transfer all my decisions into 2 and see how they play out....

@Panpipe said:

I guess we'll find out if how important obscure game mechanics are to the awesome core of the Souls series.

I would think we already discovered that with Dark Souls coming out after Demon's Souls. It's hard for me to tell (having played Dark Souls first) as perhaps for people who played them in the right order there was some new obscure stuff in Dark Souls, but I just recently went back to play Demon's Souls and had a great time with it knowing how all the core systems worked etc. Tbh when you play through the games knowing how they work it's much easier to recognize what they're strong and weak parts are. Hell, just the fact that a lot of people have played through either or both of the games several times prooves that they are fun even if you know their secrets.

@rebgav said:

@Ares42 said:

@KingGiddra: I bet what he's talking about is just things like not hiding important information in item descriptions and hints in dialogues, probably just doing some standard tutorializing instead.

Yeah, just removing the personality and style of the storytelling and replacing it with prompts and tooltips. Great.

I hope that DS2 isn't just a retread of the first game but without the panache. I also hope that Miyazaki is making a new game and that his team is getting priority treatment.

Who said anything about storytelling ? I guess you could consider it important information, but I was talking more about stuff like "If you upgrade your shield you're gonna lose way less stamina when you block". The games have been full of this kinda important information that are either just not explained at all or just mentioned as some random comment from talking to people.

Doesn't really matter where it's set, really the only design decision I care about is the removal of bosses like Four Kings and the addition of more bosses like Gwyn that get up in your face and wreck your shit.

Edit: Various things could be done to make PvP better but ultimately the playerbase is at fault for playing with generic lightning 2 hander havel mask builds and From can't stop the playerbase from being idiots, a very common trend in console games.

Forgot to mention I'm really looking forward to EpicNameBro's take on all this. He always breaks things down in meticulous fashion.

@kishinfoulux said:

Forgot to mention I'm really looking forward to EpicNameBro's take on all this. He always breaks things down in meticulous fashion.

This. ENB already says he is on the case, and if I trust anyone in the DaS community, it is him.

I love Demons and Dark Souls and I'm super excited for Dark Souls 2. I hope they improve the covenants and work harder on balancing the weapons and spells.

I'm looking forward to going into the game having a way clearer image on how to build a character, something I only gained after countless hours of the original ( unless of course they wildly change how stats work, but I can't imagine that they would).

I want an actual tutorial for stats. I love the discovery aspect to understand how to build characters. I think it's the reason why love the series so much. But honestly from a game design perspective it's the worst part of the entire game. They hardly explain what weapons are attached to what attribute or how it scales. It would be a nice addition to new players without actually turning down the difficulty.

I want covenants to matter. They're a great idea in concept but really meant nothing in the grand scheme of things. In one of ENB's videos he mentioned the idea of Soul Tendency for a covenant that is determined by the actions of the players in the covenant. That sounds like the best god damn thing in the world. There was also mention of covenant specific events that would bring people over to new covenants. Stuff like this would take the covenant system to new heights.

I want the game to take place outside of Lordran. Maybe Carim or something like that. I basically just want it to take place in different nation than Lordran.

@Puflwiz said:

@kishinfoulux said:

Forgot to mention I'm really looking forward to EpicNameBro's take on all this. He always breaks things down in meticulous fashion.

This. ENB already says he is on the case, and if I trust anyone in the DaS community, it is him.

And I can't wait for his video either. It's gonna be good.

EDIT: Oh yeah, stable PvP. Make that a thing.

I hope being more "straight forward and more understandable" doesn't end up taking away a lot of the fun of the game. Then again, after two games, you already kind of expect what's going to happen, so it probably won't be able to capture that magic of playing the game for the first time. Just hope it turns out good, along with the PC port.

I hope the dont follow ds story att all!! The undead you played as in the darksouls is gone and his quest is over.

calling it dark souls 2 is understandable since dark souls basicly is demon souls 2 but i love the shit out of these games and as long as they reward for persevering and dont give inn and gives us dificulty setting i will be happy

( sorry for bad english being norwegian and all :P )

I hope they continue to take more queues from Western RPGs in the creation of Dark Souls II, also more sunbros.

@Ares42 said:

@Panpipe said:

I guess we'll find out if how important obscure game mechanics are to the awesome core of the Souls series.

I would think we already discovered that with Dark Souls coming out after Demon's Souls. It's hard for me to tell (having played Dark Souls first) as perhaps for people who played them in the right order there was some new obscure stuff in Dark Souls, but I just recently went back to play Demon's Souls and had a great time with it knowing how all the core systems worked etc. Tbh when you play through the games knowing how they work it's much easier to recognize what they're strong and weak parts are. Hell, just the fact that a lot of people have played through either or both of the games several times prooves that they are fun even if you know their secrets.

There's no denying that DS is massively replayable, even if you read a tutorial for every part. The implication from the dev quote is that they'll be more upfront about revealing information. Now on the one hand this opens the game up to a lot of people, however, there's a band of players that really thrive on the obscurities, misinformation and open-ended style of the game. You can't deny that it adds a certain atmosphere of helplessness to the game. There's no helping hand, just a few messages on the floor (that have a lore context).

Hopefully they can keep that feel in the sequel, unless they're going for something new and fresh. Personally I wouldn't mind a different type of game of the same quality.