There is a very heavily existentialist theme to Dark Souls II, to the point where it almost seems like the writers were reading up on literature along those lines to get it across. You have to find your own way to make sense of what you see and experience, and the creators here deliberately set up a story framework that prompts you to do just that. "The one who sits upon the Throne sees what they wish to see." It all comes back to that line.
***** I think just about any interpretation is valid. It can heavily depend on how you envision your own character's inclinations. The cinematic is framed in such a way that they could be thinking all kinds of things.
***** Well, I look little further than the effect that the curse of the undead had on Lordran's very fabric of existence, in that time,& hence probability, was distorted. It practically means that for every Chosen who linked the fire, there was another who let it die out. That, I believe, is the true source of the repetitive cycle, that mankind has wrought this contrasting, flamelike existence upon itself. The fact that it's playing out so many times across so many ages & kingdoms, where the same thing happens to some extent or other, both repeats the process & represents how profoundly influential this schism is.
To follow up, it was a very stupid idea of the Ancient Lords to listen to an opportunistic, scaleless dragon & obliterate the true force of permanence in the world; his brethren. Especially when he hadn't an idea on the nature of the world itself.
@@sangun123 Everlasting Dragons don't even have a sense of perseverance to extant living stuff has. Even their DESCENDANTS, the ArchDragon in DS1, stays quiet asf even while you break it's legs. Which leads me to believe the Lords really were cracked up in order to make the Dragons violent. NK, and all other Path of the Dragon members actually hint Everlasting Dragons are indeed the only form of permanence in the World, existing beyond the First Flame or the Abyss.
To be honest, I understood NONE of the story the first time I beat it, nor did I bother to. My first playthrough was basically me eating souls and yelling "I AM THE KING OF HOLLOWS!!!" when I beat the game. Thanks for clearing the lore up a bit.
@@sukruumutertene2762 Bullshit. Even in DS3, while there are more NPCs talking about ongoing events, it still doesn't clear lots of shit up. Not to mention that in DS2, alot of companions will talk to you about events till the end aside from DLCs. DS2 is literally the way DS1 wanted to be when it comes to storytelling (and remember that it was even nerfed due to rushed development).
My only complaint was when The Emerald Harold asked me if I would sit on the throne, or reject it, and I was like "Hell yeah I'm rejecting this." and then I had to watch in horror as my character did it anyway.
I wrote this on another video, but I feel the need to share. My explanation of Dark Souls as a whole. Dark Souls is based on a mixture of Eastern and Western philosophy. Dark Souls asks us an age old question: What is the point of living? We struggle to achieve a goal which is thrust upon us. We forget why we came to this land, but in the end, we care not. We push on to achieve a goal all others want: Power? No, happiness. For our character, we gain happiness through meaning. Through the feeling of fulfillment. The Throne of Want indeed grants those who sit on it what they wish, for what better place is there to feel fulfilled, than to stand in the most important place to exist? The very place that birthed us all, The First Flame. When we finally achieve our goal, we begin to wonder if it truly was worth the effort to get to this end. Now that you are the most important person in the existence of now, are you truly happy? Are you truly fulfilled? Have you found meaning? Dark Souls then quickly reminds us that being important matters not in the passing of time. We are sacrificed to the flame to keep the age of fire alive for that much longer. No one knows our toils. No one knows our struggle. Yet in the end, we die content with our position. As time passes away, so do our deeds. We are then asked the question, "Was it worth it in the end?" Indeed Dark Souls answers this question. But first, let me explain the Curse momentarily. Those who live in the Dark Souls world believe the Curse is evil in nature, and that they must stop its spread entirely. Yet, in the end, they always fail. The Curse continues to overtake all who live. The Curse, you see, is as certain as death, but so it is as well to life. The Curse can't be stopped, and eventually it will overtake you. It is up to you how long you choose to postpone it's coming. In Dark Souls, characters begin to hollow when they have no goal. When they lose the will to achieve something, they lose the will to live. So they die and hollow. Indeed, Life is just another side to the coin of the Curse. You could even say life itself, IS the Curse. When the first flame did not exist, all things were hollow and without a soul. We felt no pain, no suffering, no anger, no struggle. This was our original state. That is what we were meant to be. It all changed when the first flame lit. Suddenly, emotion filled us all and we could feel for the first time. This was when the curse was truly born. We gained love, joy, compassion, happiness, and an insatiable lust for achievement. But we also felt hate through love, envy through joy, selfishness through compassion, and suffering through happiness. The first flame gave us understanding and emotion, at the price of tranquility. Indeed the curse was life. Even with this in mind, Dark Souls is not a depressing story about the meaninglessness of life and the certainty of death. No, in fact, it is an uplifting story about the greatness of life. It teaches us that even in the certainty of death, we must cherish the life that has been given to us. Even in the presence of pain and suffering, we must continue onward in the pursuit of our goals. It wants to let us know that we have the power to give our lives meaning! We can take life by the balls, and let it know we won't let death hold us back! We want to find meaning in our lives, and in pursuing achievement, can we find happiness! Even in the face of death. To lose the will to achieve is to hollow and become a husk of a person. Even though life is fleeting and filled with pain, we can gain fulfillment and happiness by pursuing achievement. Life is short, and time is your most valuable asset. So, live your life to its fullest, my friends, and cherish every moment. Then you will truly be happy.
I want to see a dark souls world where the flame is healthy and linked. Not close to dwindling. Is shit peachy for that relatively short time? No hollows and demons? Things live and die "peacefully" and "naturally" instead of lingering and rotting into corruption? Aww man they need to bring the time travel theme back and show us that world.
Actually I would love to control a character that is living during the Age of light where it's all peaceful and then watch the fire burn out and watch everyone around you die. Either you control that same character or a new one after the age of light has faded once again.
What I want is to be in gundyr’s place as in, you’re too late to save the fire and it is completely dark, the fire has faded and the world is swallowed by the abyss
I don’t think after the first age of fire things got better the flame endlessly fades even after being linked again and again constantly demanding more
@@GabrielShakkoriit is and it isnt cuz ya know the abyss. its a different type of downfall but pretty similar. ds2 memory recalling idea would be a great way to do it.
DS1: go light that campfire DS2: sit your ass down on that goddamn throne DS3: yeah about that campfire you can go light that again At least what I understand from all this
Actually I know I'm 3 years late but I'm coming back to these games, the canon ds3 ending is to not link the flame, but let it die out. So it would be "fuck that campfire, I ain't lighting that shit again"
@@CallMeMitochondria Clearly the only reasonable ending is to master both light and dark and end the constant cycle of Age of Fire, Age of Dark, Age of Fire, Age of Dark. Allow humanity to have domain over The Abyss again. Instead of having The Abyss within them consume them.
@@KingDerek58 there is no cannon ending in any of the games but for the sequel to happen DS1 needs to have Fire Ending. Similarly for there to be no DS4 the Fading Fire Ending is needed
ive put over 1000 hours in the first dark souls and ive already beaten the 2nd five times and watching this video made me cry a little it was so great. ive watched all your videos and each time i watch a new one it makes me think how great this game is and makes me appreciate it more thank you.
When I played this, all I thought of is kill and don't die, but now that a see all of this lore I have missed, it feels as if I played only 10% of the game. This show me Dark Souls is more deep than you think. 10/10
Am i the only one who actually digs this ending? An endless cycle is fine and actually suits this game perfectly. Dark Souls is a game that very much appeals to the old gaming style where you're free to roam around, but you will have to follow a given path if you want to progress in the game; where enemies are actually hard to kill and even the easiest can kill you if you don't pay attention; where gameplay is more important than graphics and so on so on. My point is, back in the heyday of videogames you weren't given choices, your in game decisions didn't affect how the rest was going to play out and Dark Souls is very similar to that. The fact that we don't have a choice in the ending and that the ending will always be somewhat the same is perfectly aligned with Dark Souls' style. We can play however many sequels of the game we want, with slightly varied plots but with the same finale, hence shifting focus on the gameplay rather than the lore.
Storm Mee only if you defeat Aldia, hence why each time you meet him he babbles on about 'shedding the yolk of fate' (if you didn't mash the select button to skip it) XD
The dark covenant has missions where you link fire in the abyss. I think the approach they wanted to give us in dark souls 2 is different to linking the fire or not, but just as it's said at the start, to look for a cure to the curse too. Basically, long story short, it's a very open ending just as the ones of dark souls 1, but this time without choice even, and it makes sense, you don't see the player linking the fire, and he sitting in the throne is not necessarily linking it, but it's what the people expects you to do. Vendrick and Aldia both wanted to just cure permanently the curse, but eventually succumbed in different ways. They surrender in that goal. There are theories about bloodborne and even elden ring being in fact canonically paired with dark souls but just seeing the natural order in dark souls makes me see that connection in both worlds is not. Or at least it should not be. Dark souls has a very fantasy and grim origin to humanity, Bloodborne is a bit more "normal" in that way but it has it's "curse" too, it's just instead of a fated dooming thing, is a divine enemy a whole specie even. Something i like to think is how the cycle feeds himself, and even try to bound people to kindled it. For me is a fight against fate and nature. What is more forced? linking the flame? Or trying to solve your problems in the dark? Another thing i think now is how it seems some characters seems the "dark way" as a form of enlightenment. They are not necessarily sharing the same thoughts or opinions about the cycle, like that girl in ds3 compared to the leader of the dark covenant in ds2 or even the serpent in ds1. But they all seem to think the element of dark brings something necessary. The girl and the serpent thinks the dark age is the age needed. And i'm with that way of thinking, a world bound by fate is a world enslaved. Maybe they could get lost in that way, and definitely they could suffer. But people subject to something like that would be better trying to find another way instead of feeding the cycle. And some ideas came to mind worth of another dark souls game ending. Like mixing the light with the dark or something like that, even if the witch of izalith showed how bad idea is troubling the souls of the first flame.
DS2 has a personal story, while DS1 and DS3 have a grander "fate of the world" story. DS2 protagonist went out to seek a way to cure, or at least stop the curse. He had a life he desperately did not want to forget and everything led him to Drangleic. The intro cinemtaic is everything your character remembers - his wife holding his child in her hands. The last sliver of the reason he departed on his journey in the first place and even this one static image is crumbling before his very eyes. The game specifically does not linger on it in hopes that you will forget - that your character will forget - the true reason why you are here. NPC's even tell you about becoming a king, so you assume it is why you are here. And then, you meet Lucatiel. If you do her questline, she will tell you that she journeyed here to find a cure for the curse. She does not want to forget her life. She is what most player characters were before they came into Drangleic, when they still knew their goal. And it turns out that the stories were true - the cure does exist. If you go out of your way and collect the crowns, he will make them into one whole crown. Crown powerful enough to break the hollowing curse, if only for a single person. When you stand before the Throne of Want you have a choice - to inherit it, or to reject it. Inheriting it always means one thing - the curse has overwhelmed you along your journey without you even noticing it. You lost your memories. Your quest ended in failure. But if you by some miracle still remember that one still image from the prolouge and understand it's meaning... you walk away from the throne. You leave this cursed land to it's fate, having gotten exactly what you wanted out of it. You can go back to the most precious thing you ever had - to a life with meaning you yourself created.
@@coredetta You see a brief glimpse of them in the intro cinematic. The last memory of them that you still have - a static picture of a woman cradling a child in her arms. But even this single picture is breaking down, literally melting before your eyes as you focus on it. You not knowing that just means the curse has taken away everything from you. You don't even remember why you did all of that. Why you went through all this horror, all this suffering, all this nightmare. Someone told you that you've come here to become a king and you had nothing else to latch on to, so you assumed it was your goal all along.
I really enjoyed your interpretation of the Dull Ember and explanation of it. I completely agree with your interpretation of the ages, and the Undead being a part of the cycle which comes as the age darkens. (And disappears for a time as a new age is kindled into existence) Well done, great job on the video!
I think that Vendrick's entire journey to save Drangleic from the curse was a result of him knowing the cycle exists already. HE wanted to be the chosen. HE wanted to be the one to solve everything, so he fought the Undead Curse with all he had, but because Hollow because at the end of the day, his will was still not strong enough... But as I said, conjecture.
i wish they hadn't completely pissed on dark souls 2 the way they have, DS3 constantly hits you in the face with DS1 referrences but the DS2 lore was pretty awesome I thought. the only thing i didn't like about 2 was the level design and a few of the mechanics changes but now its just a big waste
100% agree with you on this one. Dark Souls 2's lore, atmosphere, character design, etc. was still amazing. It's fine if people believe that Dark Souls is better, but DS2 was still good enough to the point where they didn't have to leave it in the ashes. I'm not sure if there are more than a couple references to Dark Souls 2 in Dark Souls 3 (correct me if I'm wrong). There really should have been some more to do with the DS2.
yeah there aren't many. Its just too bad that DS2 felt like it was taking place 1000s of years after DS1 and felt really unique and had only subtle hints tying it to DS1 but with all new lore born from all those years. but then DS3 feels like its only a few years later and that suddenly the world remembers anor londo and the gods that ruled there like it was yesterday and it just washes over DS2 like it didn't happen.
To be fair, just because DS3 came out (in our world) after DS2 does not mean that it takes place chronologically after 2. Time (and space) in Lordran is convoluted.
So, here's something additional that you didn't point out that, if I'm correct, you were trying to imply: all the great souls flourished anew after the fire was linked at the end of DS1, so it is quite possible that: 1) The Rotten is a reincarnation of Nito 2) The Lost Sinner is a reincarnation of the Witch of Izalith (relighting the first flame again are we?) 3) The "Old Paledrake Soul" from the dead dragon present during the Duke's Dear Freja fight is (or was, as it is dead again) a reincarnation of Seath the Scaleless 4) The only place where this doesn't hold up is the old iron king (it is possible that Gwyn might be represented by him or by Vendrick, but there's no substantial evidence for this) 5) Finally, the children of dark are implied to be living fragments of the "First being of dark", presumably Manus from the DKS1 DLC Anyone find any of this agreeable?
Interesting thoughts, though we do see the effects the remnants of the Witch of Izalith had on the burnt ivory king in the dlc, so it doesn't quite hold up.
Doesn't really work out, as Seath's soul is just a piece of Gwyn (larger, but the same as something a Silver Knight would have) and Manus is one of the great (original) souls, so the dark beings would be representing one if they were going that route... Which is weird.
Matter of opinion tbh i liked 3 for its visuals and smooth play ds1 forever hooked me and ds2 was there when both left me longing for more but my home and favorite is always gonna be 3 ok so what it was similar to 1 doesn't mean i didnt have just as much fun and spend tons of time with friends just fucking around and having fun 2 was ambitious but in my opinion was also quantity over quality where 3 was quality over quantity and 1 was good balance of both
@topple You realise that ds 2 goes against everything ds 1 it's a mislead shit show of luck has a far greater impact then skill a lot of the time and thats not dark souls. It has the opposite vibe and theme. It says from the start u will suffer u will die laughing at u in ur face just give. Up ds 1 has keep going u can do it, dont u dare go hollow etc. If miyazaki was apart of the game it would have been so much better. The bosses r 90% dog shot in multiple ways including quantity over quality and being shit. Who wants to level up estus drinking speed or invincibility frames. Yuck. And my personal opinion on life gems is it ain't broke it works we like it lets change it make it yuck and arguable potentially easier bc u have 9000 life gems. Its clunkier and heavier then ds 1 aswell. I can go on. Its not dark souls if the name changed it would be a lot better. But I don't want a dark souls thwt has little to do with dark souls and lower quality mechanics etc
One neat little detail is if you're playing for the first time there's a very high probability Nashandra curses your character so usually the cinematic would have you assume the throne as a hollow. It changes the tone a bit from the sort of noble sacrifice vibe you get here especially if you're wearing some banged up mismatched set of armor you looted off a rotting corpse.
Wait, so, no matter what you (or any Undead) does, the world is doomed to continually cycle into disrepair and collapse? That's incredibly depressing. And rather pointless.
Except that rather than a hero being needed to keep civilization growing and healthy, Dark Souls needs a hero to basically start the world over again from scratch, every time. If he feels like it, because even if he doesn't apparently it doesn't matter, because someone else will eventually do it anyway, somehow. And it's apparently pointless to try to prevent things from getting that bad in the first place, because you can only 'save the day' after it's already basically completely lost to begin with. Hooray!
SaltyWaffles So? That's what life is. We're born, we die, and eventually it was all for nothing. But it's worth it, because temporary life and happiness is still life and happiness. Linking the flame isn't pointless, any more than it was pointless for us to be born just because someday we're bound to die.
Tanner Fredrickson :| I think you're missing the point here, also that's not what life is... I mean.. where the fuck do you get that from mate? People do things all the time that makes a HUGE fucking difference, I mean.. for fucks sake if things kept going over and over and over again with it being for "nothing" then we wouldn't have things like internet. The pure creation of the internet is something ungodly by itself.
This video shows exactly why I prefere a series bearing a same storyline/lore. Look at how complex you can get, especially on a game like Dark Souls, where there is so much room for interpretation. I hope there is a Dark Souls 3 or even a different named game, that spots the same storyline. Dark Souls 1 ends, after some time 2 begins, goes on and on. I could play this game forever. Look how they linked the two games! Amazing work in my humble opinion! And I feel like it would be such a huge waste to just toss away all this "creative potential" that resides within the lore. Great video Vaati! I sure as hell feel like this Patreonage was one of the most well spent money in some time! Great work as always
Unpopular opinion, but 2 is actually my favorite. And I think the reason why is that extra layer of bleakness from the people in Drangleic, unlike 1 and 3, not knowing the history of the world. They don't really know about the Lord souls or their origins. It was Aldia alone that began to piece it together. The world of 2 just feels much more adrift then the others, not just in a state of decay.
This is why I like 2 as well. 1 shows great and powerful civilisations that have almost entirely fallen apart, despite the efforts of the most powerful beings desperately trying to hold together that which remains. 3 shows a time where the very world itself is essentially rotting and falling apart after seemingly eternal cycles, with the refusal of the lords of cinder to rekindle the flame just furthering this decay. 2, however, has that bleakness you describe. It is a world very separated through time from Lordran and Lothric, where the events and characters of 1 are nearly all forgotten but their impact is felt in places from the somewhat inevitable feeling of the cycling system's inevitability. The variety of locations, people and history that both appear and are mentioned emphasise how much of this new world there is, with so little of it having any relation to the other games at all. The environments themselves feel less like they are part of a crumbling society or a dying world, but rather that the places simply fell into ruin long ago and simply remained that way, with some creatures or hollows still remaining or having moved in. Other places still feel quite functional in their own ways, like harvest valley, no-man's wharf, dragon shrine, the growing community in Majula and more. From this bleakness and a world where it can feel like we are just exploring what was destroyed long ago or that which still manages to work in its small part of the land, unrelated to other matters, I can't help but get a feeling of peacefulness from Drangleic and can find the world quite calming.
i by no means read all the comments on this video but i get really pissed off by the people who bash the hell out of dark souls 2. sure everyone is entitled to their opinion but some people are acting like going from DS 1 to DS 2 is like going from driving a lambo to a rusted out honda civic. i personally enjoyed DS 1 more but that doesn't mean i didn't love DS 2. i have come to believe that most people think their special or something if they don't like DS 2, some people DO HAVE VALID REASONS but the people bitching about it being a copy paste of DS 1 are the same people complaining about how DS 2 is different from DS 1!! i'm strictly a PvE player so i don't have a horse in the PvP race so i'm not trying to speak for all DS fans out their but god damn people sure do love to hate DS 2 when even if it is weaker than DS 1 it's still an amazing game. TL;DR- DS 2 is still an amazing game regardless of how good DS 1 was. sorry for writing a novel. EDIT*- why can't we all just love the Dark Souls games for what they are, AMAZING GAMES!
I don't like Dark Souls 2. It seems like the developers wanted to recreate what Dark Souls 1 was without understanding what made it so great in the first place. That was a real disappointment for me. Tha said DS2 is still a great game on it's own and definitely better than most other games in the genre. It isjsut the high expectation that DS1 has left me with that caused my lack of enjoyment of DS2.
The best thing they could do for Dark Souls II is to remove the snap points from the movement. It was such a baffling decision. I still play Dark Souls II today. Especially the DLC.
This is the most thorough and well thought out assumption of dark souls i've ever watched! Thanks for putting this out, I would never figure all this out myself haha
I get the impression that during the game, you're actually living in an Age of Dark, with Nashandra acting as the Dark Lord, which would suggest either ending in DS1 is still canon, as either choice just results in an extreme that will result in a return to equilibrium, the natural state of a slowly burning fire. Cute, but very boring. Endless cycle tropes don't really lead anywhere, they just sound interesting on paper, until you realize you then have to either break the cycle or remake the same game over and over again. Which is what DS2 was. A poor direction to take the series, but probably the result of heavy handed eastern philosophical influences. The world just gets reorganized and scrambled, but achieves nothing. Maybe it has more resonance with asian audiences? A theoretical DS3 would have to be about why the cycle began to begin with, and perhaps on how to ultimately end it, and whether zero life is better than an eternity of repetition. Which I guess would be a fitting ending to a trilogy of games set in such a static setting.
This is why i watch your videos. Gives me an entirely new perspective. I thought the ending was poorly done and when you and others put a spin on it i don't feel disapointed. I absolutely can't wait for you to start diving into the rest of the game.
if that were true then the cycle has happened 5 times before (judging by the five sublime bone dusts that you can find) however, the plot also allows for an unlimited amount of sequels to occur... bravo from soft... bravo
Hey VaatiVidya, I don't know if you paid attention or not but did you look at the bonfires in (at least) Dark Souls 2? They're remains. Skulls, bones, and all that. I figure you'd like to explore a little lore into that if you never paid attention. Maybe undeads sacrificed themselves for the fire and thus that's why feeding them humanity strengthens them? When you're hollow, you get more powerful when you use a humanity so... Yeah?
"With the dying of the flame comes the curse of the undead, and kindling it will break the curse". It's so obvious yet I never thought about it like that. My own interpretation of what is what hadn't progressed as far as yours, and this piece of insight (from DS1 no less) is just what I needed. Thanks.
I love how this game guides you into artistic interpretation. I interpreted DS 1 and 2 as like one person commented "existentialist", and I feel like it's nihilistic too. I see the theme of the game as what 'is', 'is', like millions of years of inevetable pain and death that just comes with existence that we just have to accept but in doing so it kind of disconnects us from compassion for fellow man. And in the nihilistic aspect I see it as an empty, cold game, not that everything is out to kill you for sport but just to fulfill the big picture of this 'isness' of inevitable death and pain. I hope some of this makes sense. I just see the game as a "big picture" stretching all of the pain and death that has ever occurred in time and putting it into this game. Every NPC seems to be aloof to the players existence and the cinematics of 1 and 2 just make you feel like your in an epic world of deadly beasts and also small completely empty, mindless hollows.
Vaati, about the "Chosen Undead" repeating over and over, I thought the idea was that there was no Chosen Undead, the idea of it was just being used by Gwyndolin to control the player in Dark Souls 1?
Pretty much. No one is chosen, as there's no fate in play, it's just sheer coincidence that one of the undead (who has their sanity) wants to link the fire
My theory is that the hollow curse is brought about by the flame itself to ensure its continued survival. Everytime the flame might die, the hollows start to run rampant and somebody decides to link the flame to deal with the problem. Thus ensuring the flame stays lit. I'm probably wildly wrong but it seems like a cool idea to me.
I came to the souls series late with DS ps5, I skipped over DS2 because of all the hate. I finally played it and beat it and I fucking love this game. WTF is everyone talking about? I get some criticisms but people made it sound like it betrayed the series or something. It’s such a great game
In Dark Souls 3 they better let you either cure the curse and stop the endless cycle or just end it with the whole world being destroyed or something... because what's the point of caring about a "story" if in the end it achieves NOTHING!
I love it when there are so many unanswered questions. It really makes everything more interesting. In general, I dislike games that tell you exactly everything that's going on, compared to games where there are a lot of unanswered questions, but also connections that you find by yourself.
In my head canon, Dark Souls 1 and 3 are the two games where character names don’t matter, so I give them the name ‘Chosen Undead,’ and ‘Ashen One.’ Dark Souls 2, however, I like to imagine was a character that we have met. I like to imagine that the main character from Dark Souls 2 is Slave Knight Gael from the DS3 DLC. It makes sense to me from a thematic perspective: he walked away from the throne to look for something else, and found Ariandel, a world that resides in a painting. Gael sought to build a new world with the painter, and come the events of DS3, Gael and the Ashen One find the blood of the Dark Soul to make a new painting, which ultimately leads to Gael’s loss of sanity and ultimate demise. Thanks to the Ashen One, Gael and the painter were able to begin reconstruction of a new world that was free from the cycle of fire and dark. The Ashen One goes on to fulfill their purpose, but there is hope of a world to come in the future for the inhabitants of the dying world. I don’t know if this TRULY makes sense from a lore perspective, so feel free to let me know if this theory has holes in it or if you think it holds water!
Gael is mysterious and has lived a very long time. I personally believe he was a Baldur Knight from DS1 given the similar armor and the red cloak. But much of Dark Souls is about interpretation.
Endless repeating cycle of extinction... Hmm... Reminds me of something. So in Dark Souls 3 we will have 3 differently colored endings and our choices won't matter.
I was literally just reading about Buddhism and the The Three Dharma Seals of Impermanence, Nonself and Nirvana. I kept coming back to my experience of Dark Souls 2. Nirvana is moving beyond life and death, being and non-being; to gain the power of the Crowns and reverse Hollowing is to move beyond light and dark, with the understanding that on the next playthrough, it must all be experienced again to regain that power. I loved Dark Souls 2 more than 3, and I always felt that it was deeper than the other two. I think I'm finally beginning to understand part of why.
An interesting difference, though: In the first Dark Souls, linking the First Flame sets you on fire, ends the game and then you wake up back in your cell when you start NG+. It's heavily implied to be a sacrifice required to prolong the Age of Fire. In Dark Souls 2, sitting on the Throne of Want doesn't show you bursting into flames, and after the credits you actually return to Majula and can keep going until you manually start NG+. That kinda implies that sitting on the throne doesn't disintegrate you or anything, nor does it appear to fix the Undead Curse. (At least not right away.)
You provided a wonderful interpretation & I appreciate the platform of end-beginning, in gathering proofs of the supportive characters, their drives & needs to be fulfilled - while a new era was on the brink of manifesting. As per the great kiln, the birth of an illuminating light was granted & is much appreciated. I admire your analytic dissection & applaud your insights, VaatVidya. Bravo, Maestro !
The way you described the Age of Fire starting over and over again, made me think of a phoenix. Eventually it dies, but it's brought back to life in a continuous cycle. ...And it happens to be made of fire.
BUT! Each time the fire rekindled it is weaker and weaker until one day it dies fully, but without fire there is no dark, so will the whole world vanish completely until one day it is remade by someone or something and what will it even be?
I'd assume it'd be kinda like a "reset", the world would go back to its natural state and dragons would rule again. Then hollows would find great souls again and the cycle would just be reborn.
the fire is an allegory of existence. light and dark are another for the cycle of life and death is began. The universe started from nothing creating positive and negative (fire and dark), and as a explosion it will contract and end all and create another universe( the cycle) until there is nothingness. And from nothingness it can begin again.
Considering demon souls was the same, i knew dark souls 1 choices didn't matter because the curse still exists. Sure Dark Souls is a spiritual successor and not a true sequel but the fact is it is the next game and takes alot of the core plot to that game. Makes sense there is no choice but i just feel the game pointed you to kill vendrick yet you ended up killing nashandra made no sense throughout most of the dialog
Maybe they were going for the Nashandra is the reason why the curse returned. Think about it Nashandra's appearance looks like old Gravelord Nito, and it says she was a manifestation of the abyss. The abyss tried to consume the light in Dark Souls 1 creating the destroyed version of Oolacile. The curse may be a reaction of the humanity in humans trying to return to the abyss.
Myles Newman Yea cause humanity doesn't want to live in the light only dark. Not entirely sure how that makes sense. I just wished instead of the game(Emerald Herald and Nashandra illusion at drangleic) didn't tell tel you to beat vendrick but rather Nashandra. Shanalotte(emerald herald) knew all along it was her yet said originally vendrick. It's just poor writing even if the lore makes sense and ends up a decent story
Maybe it was a trick for Dark Souls vets. The first game was designed for the main character to overthrow an old dying king. In a way its the same way here, but you also completely overthrow the monarchy (king/queen)
I agree, Nashandra was dark and you can tell this by what is said in the game and the obviousness of the boss fight, she had planned the war with the giants. It sais she told Vendrick the king of the threat before she was ever queen. She wanted to take place on the throne next to him and plot to overthrow him to extinguish the flame and usher in an age of dark.
Vaati, you said that when the flame starts to fade the curse gets stronger to make appear another chosen undead and then you said that when we light the flame the curse disappear for a moment, a short moment. BUT the bonfire ascetic description says: "Fire exhibits a connection to the curse, and when the flames grow stronger, so does the curse." It seems like the opposite, doesn't it?
It's referring to curse of humanity, not explicity the undead curse but the darksign and the repression of dark between men which is strengthened by fire as the far exists to control the dark soul.
Hey Vaati, just wanted to let you know I may have stumbled onto a major discovery in dark souls 2 lore. More specifically what the hell Drangleic is. This discovery takes the form of the item description for the Lingering Dragoncrest Ring sold (not soul traded) by Straid of Olaphis. "A ring used long, long ago, in a land that existed where Drangleic does now..." "...Presumably, this ring was used by a high sorcerer, but no such proof remains." This means that since Drangleic was built on top of many fallen kingdoms, one of these kingdoms was either Vinheim, or, one which I think is more likely, Lordran. The sorcerer referenced is most likely Logan, even though Griggs owned the ring. although other item descriptions bring to light the warped historical beliefs of people in the time dark souls 2 takes place, and Griggs was sort of an apprentice to Logan, which is why I think it is Lordran and not Vinheim. Not to mention the striking resemblance Heide's tower of flame has to Anor Londo, as pointed out in the heide's tower of flame video. It's entirely possible that Heide's tower of flame is merely a part of Anor Londo that we did not have the chance to explore in Dark Souls 1. The parts we did explore are now lost to the ocean. This may also mean that the throne of want, was, in fact, built on the site of the Kiln of the First flame, as I've heard some people theorize.
On it's own, Dark Souls 2 is not a powerful story. However, as a companion game to DkS 1 it is stellar. And that is it's main failing, it depends too much on the perfect first game, so that it comes across as merely being a great game.
As a companion it is a massive step down though. In terms of level and boss design it's just not as creative or interesting. DS1 was basically level design 101. I would urge anyone who ever plans on making games to play it. Lorewise, DS2 just shits on DS1 and is all like "lolz shit's pointless it's a cycle".
Late to the party but that moment when you realize the Shield of Want in Dark Souls 3 is Vendrick's "King's Shield" in Dark Souls 2. I don't know what but Vaati talking about the Throne of Want and saying "want" several times in a row made me think of this.
I wish there was some true ending, Cycle going over and over again feels sad and makes My character life unaccomplished :( We were seeking the way to cure the undead curse, not to find out it will start all over again someday
yes but think about it how did the age of fire begin? it begins in darksouls one with creatures like gwyn nito and the witch each taking a part of the fires power and the pygmy hollow finding the 4th last part. Every part of the fire seems to mean something i belive gwyns part was light and the witch part was life so this would mean nitos part was death and the last part the pygmy is dark. In both games we only collect 3 parts of the fire as it is never stated what happened to the pygmys part the dark part. only returning 3 parts seems to reset a cycle. this in turn makes me belive that if the fire part of dark was located and returned the endless age the dragons once lived in would be restored and this also explains why dragons went to war agaist gwyn and the others they knew what the fire actually was. So you see its becomes a full cycle that way and only the dragons knew this and they are extinct so in darksouls 2 you try as so many other times to find a solution to end this (curse) but fail and just relit the flame once more simply becouse nobody knows that last part actually even exist or what happened to it.
So is short DkS II is a cool reference to DkS while still a million answers from the 1st one remain unanswered. And we got the general theme, or 'focus' of the game quite early on, at least I did. But unlike the 1st one, it doesn't leave much to interpretation, or if you try to realize it in another way, it's too empty to even start building some other theory.
The only story worth mentioning in Dark Souls 2 is of the Prince and Princess of Alken and Venn. Thats the only thing interesting the rest is is just reused content from the previous game so there's no reason to speculate it at all we already have Dark Souls 1 to reference it. Dark Souls 2 is primarily fanfiction with added fluff to disguise it.
I appreciate you trying to make the most out of From's obvious misstep with the franchise. To be honest this really plays out like fan fiction, I mean just the fact you have to use a lot of Dark Souls 1 videos to explain the story highlights the problem. Which would make sense, since a lot of the original devs are gone. I hope that this whole project beast is real.
I first tried to read every item, weapon,spell, soul description as I came across them but that turned into a chore and I honestly could not be bothered anymore. So I'm glad these videos exist.
McDuff also has some great dialogue about the desire inherent in flames, how they reach out for life and yet how they burn to ash everything they touch. Although the fire symbolism is a bit belabored, it really does make for a game with a coherent philosophy that enables speculation
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
My dark souls 2 ending interpretation
"You died".
Mine: Great now beat the dlcs!
Mine: throw the game , play other games in which you don't suck
Ankit Chandola and here’s my ending
“There is always...another way”
hollow..
Vaati the type of guy to be standing at the gates and actually knowing why
I know that it's a year after on a seven year old video but this is fucking hilarious
@@davidgoebel2829 nice
@@davidgoebel2829 agreed
@@maximumstromboli4024 vaati the type of guy to play the souls game for the story
@@hethen5846 dam I do too
Bear... seek... seek... lest...
Alif Izammel Tan so true
So many times
Bearer seek seek lest.
(A)...(A)...(A)...(A)...
"FFS just let me level up,woman!"
THE CYCLE HAS BEEN REPEATED MORE TIMES THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE, SHEPARD.
xD
How come solaire can't link it?
There should be Solaire ending, PRAISE THE SUN
OMG!! hAhaha loving that reference
Well, back to the Nomandy
There is a very heavily existentialist theme to Dark Souls II, to the point where it almost seems like the writers were reading up on literature along those lines to get it across. You have to find your own way to make sense of what you see and experience, and the creators here deliberately set up a story framework that prompts you to do just that.
"The one who sits upon the Throne sees what they wish to see." It all comes back to that line.
***** I think just about any interpretation is valid. It can heavily depend on how you envision your own character's inclinations. The cinematic is framed in such a way that they could be thinking all kinds of things.
***** Well, I look little further than the effect that the curse of the undead had on Lordran's very fabric of existence, in that time,& hence probability, was distorted. It practically means that for every Chosen who linked the fire, there was another who let it die out. That, I believe, is the true source of the repetitive cycle, that mankind has wrought this contrasting, flamelike existence upon itself. The fact that it's playing out so many times across so many ages & kingdoms, where the same thing happens to some extent or other, both repeats the process & represents how profoundly influential this schism is.
To follow up, it was a very stupid idea of the Ancient Lords to listen to an opportunistic, scaleless dragon & obliterate the true force of permanence in the world; his brethren. Especially when he hadn't an idea on the nature of the world itself.
lmfao why wouldn't they, it was necessary to fight the dragons and take the land
@@sangun123 Everlasting Dragons don't even have a sense of perseverance to extant living stuff has. Even their DESCENDANTS, the ArchDragon in DS1, stays quiet asf even while you break it's legs.
Which leads me to believe the Lords really were cracked up in order to make the Dragons violent. NK, and all other Path of the Dragon members actually hint Everlasting Dragons are indeed the only form of permanence in the World, existing beyond the First Flame or the Abyss.
To be honest, I understood NONE of the story the first time I beat it, nor did I bother to. My first playthrough was basically me eating souls and yelling "I AM THE KING OF HOLLOWS!!!" when I beat the game.
Thanks for clearing the lore up a bit.
thats one of the biggest weakness of ds2 its not like that in other souls game even if you not care you still have some idea not in this one
This is literally me with the "I'm the strongest in drangleic mentality" 💀
@@sukruumutertene2762 Bullshit. Even in DS3, while there are more NPCs talking about ongoing events, it still doesn't clear lots of shit up. Not to mention that in DS2, alot of companions will talk to you about events till the end aside from DLCs. DS2 is literally the way DS1 wanted to be when it comes to storytelling (and remember that it was even nerfed due to rushed development).
My only complaint was when The Emerald Harold asked me if I would sit on the throne, or reject it, and I was like "Hell yeah I'm rejecting this." and then I had to watch in horror as my character did it anyway.
Why don't these guys just discover fossil fuels to keep fueling the flame.
Cthulhu lol
+Cthulhu Exactingly. Also Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
***** then just sacrifice people every now an then, I know I'm up for that.
***** It is when you're me, I carry all the souls of those who have "drowned" at sea.
+Cthulhu Why don't you discover fast food and stop eating souls.
I wrote this on another video, but I feel the need to share.
My explanation of Dark Souls as a whole.
Dark Souls is based on a mixture of Eastern and Western philosophy.
Dark Souls asks us an age old question: What is the point of living?
We struggle to achieve a goal which is thrust upon us. We forget why we came to this land, but in the end, we care not. We push on to achieve a goal all others want: Power? No, happiness. For our character, we gain happiness through meaning. Through the feeling of fulfillment.
The Throne of Want indeed grants those who sit on it what they wish, for what better place is there to feel fulfilled, than to stand in the most important place to exist? The very place that birthed us all, The First Flame.
When we finally achieve our goal, we begin to wonder if it truly was worth the effort to get to this end. Now that you are the most important person in the existence of now, are you truly happy?
Are you truly fulfilled? Have you found meaning?
Dark Souls then quickly reminds us that being important matters not in the passing of time. We are sacrificed to the flame to keep the age of fire alive for that much longer. No one knows our toils. No one knows our struggle. Yet in the end, we die content with our position.
As time passes away, so do our deeds.
We are then asked the question, "Was it worth it in the end?"
Indeed Dark Souls answers this question.
But first, let me explain the Curse momentarily.
Those who live in the Dark Souls world believe the Curse is evil in nature, and that they must stop its spread entirely.
Yet, in the end, they always fail. The Curse continues to overtake all who live. The Curse, you see, is as certain as death, but so it is as well to life.
The Curse can't be stopped, and eventually it will overtake you. It is up to you how long you choose to postpone it's coming.
In Dark Souls, characters begin to hollow when they have no goal. When they lose the will to achieve something, they lose the will to live.
So they die and hollow.
Indeed, Life is just another side to the coin of the Curse. You could even say life itself, IS the Curse.
When the first flame did not exist, all things were hollow and without a soul. We felt no pain, no suffering, no anger, no struggle.
This was our original state. That is what we were meant to be.
It all changed when the first flame lit. Suddenly, emotion filled us all and we could feel for the first time.
This was when the curse was truly born.
We gained love, joy, compassion, happiness, and an insatiable lust for achievement.
But we also felt hate through love, envy through joy, selfishness through compassion, and suffering through happiness. The first flame gave us understanding and emotion, at the price of tranquility.
Indeed the curse was life.
Even with this in mind, Dark Souls is not a depressing story about the meaninglessness of life and the certainty of death.
No, in fact, it is an uplifting story about the greatness of life. It teaches us that even in the certainty of death, we must cherish the life that has been given to us.
Even in the presence of pain and suffering, we must continue onward in the pursuit of our goals.
It wants to let us know that we have the power to give our lives meaning!
We can take life by the balls, and let it know we won't let death hold us back!
We want to find meaning in our lives, and in pursuing achievement, can we find happiness!
Even in the face of death.
To lose the will to achieve is to hollow and become a husk of a person.
Even though life is fleeting and filled with pain, we can gain fulfillment and happiness by pursuing achievement.
Life is short, and time is your most valuable asset.
So, live your life to its fullest, my friends, and cherish every moment.
Then you will truly be happy.
+TheConspiratorist
Brilliantly explained. Thank you.
Joe Shmo No my friend, thank you!
+TheConspiratorist At least I can say beating Das " was worth it
Darksouls has inspired me to work harder to buy that Graphics card to be able to play DS3 :3
TheConspiratorist well, atleast i have read that, thats worth of an achievement.
I want to see a dark souls world where the flame is healthy and linked. Not close to dwindling. Is shit peachy for that relatively short time? No hollows and demons? Things live and die "peacefully" and "naturally" instead of lingering and rotting into corruption? Aww man they need to bring the time travel theme back and show us that world.
Actually I would love to control a character that is living during the Age of light where it's all peaceful and then watch the fire burn out and watch everyone around you die. Either you control that same character or a new one after the age of light has faded once again.
What I want is to be in gundyr’s place as in, you’re too late to save the fire and it is completely dark, the fire has faded and the world is swallowed by the abyss
The DLC of Dark souls 1 Is close to that.
I don’t think after the first age of fire things got better the flame endlessly fades even after being linked again and again constantly demanding more
@@GabrielShakkoriit is and it isnt cuz ya know the abyss. its a different type of downfall but pretty similar. ds2 memory recalling idea would be a great way to do it.
"First thing to note is that the throne itself is a kiln"
Oh god dammit I'm on fire again aren't I.
DS1: go light that campfire
DS2: sit your ass down on that goddamn throne
DS3: yeah about that campfire you can go light that again
At least what I understand from all this
Actually I know I'm 3 years late but I'm coming back to these games, the canon ds3 ending is to not link the flame, but let it die out. So it would be "fuck that campfire, I ain't lighting that shit again"
@@CallMeMitochondria I thought ds3 had no canon ending.
@@CallMeMitochondria there's no canon ending
@@CallMeMitochondria Clearly the only reasonable ending is to master both light and dark and end the constant cycle of Age of Fire, Age of Dark, Age of Fire, Age of Dark. Allow humanity to have domain over The Abyss again. Instead of having The Abyss within them consume them.
@@KingDerek58 there is no cannon ending in any of the games but for the sequel to happen DS1 needs to have Fire Ending. Similarly for there to be no DS4 the Fading Fire Ending is needed
*Fun drinking game:* take a shot each time Vaati says the word "understand".
You say fun drinking game I say accidental suicide.
Nebby exactly
Fuck that, I became hollow eighteen times!!!! *NEVER AGAIN!!!!*
I went through 3 bottles of Scotch. And that’s not including my buddy who I watched this with
Instructions followed, liver damage soon follows
ive put over 1000 hours in the first dark souls and ive already beaten the 2nd five times and watching this video made me cry a little it was so great. ive watched all your videos and each time i watch a new one it makes me think how great this game is and makes me appreciate it more thank you.
I don't think you were crying.
When I played this, all I thought of is kill and don't die, but now that a see all of this lore I have missed, it feels as if I played only 10% of the game. This show me Dark Souls is more deep than you think. 10/10
i watch this without knowing why . . . i didnt even buy this game
Muka Powa buy it
Yeah, this is how awesome this channel is
"Without knowing why"... Are you sure you didnt played the game?
@Source Dasher gracias... Hehe
if you truly the worthy monarch then you will find yourself in this game without knowing why
Am i the only one who actually digs this ending?
An endless cycle is fine and actually suits this game perfectly. Dark Souls is a game that very much appeals to the old gaming style where you're free to roam around, but you will have to follow a given path if you want to progress in the game; where enemies are actually hard to kill and even the easiest can kill you if you don't pay attention; where gameplay is more important than graphics and so on so on.
My point is, back in the heyday of videogames you weren't given choices, your in game decisions didn't affect how the rest was going to play out and Dark Souls is very similar to that.
The fact that we don't have a choice in the ending and that the ending will always be somewhat the same is perfectly aligned with Dark Souls' style. We can play however many sequels of the game we want, with slightly varied plots but with the same finale, hence shifting focus on the gameplay rather than the lore.
Jared Doyle you can walk outside rather than sitting on the throne
Storm Mee only if you defeat Aldia, hence why each time you meet him he babbles on about 'shedding the yolk of fate' (if you didn't mash the select button to skip it) XD
The dark covenant has missions where you link fire in the abyss. I think the approach they wanted to give us in dark souls 2 is different to linking the fire or not, but just as it's said at the start, to look for a cure to the curse too. Basically, long story short, it's a very open ending just as the ones of dark souls 1, but this time without choice even, and it makes sense, you don't see the player linking the fire, and he sitting in the throne is not necessarily linking it, but it's what the people expects you to do. Vendrick and Aldia both wanted to just cure permanently the curse, but eventually succumbed in different ways. They surrender in that goal. There are theories about bloodborne and even elden ring being in fact canonically paired with dark souls but just seeing the natural order in dark souls makes me see that connection in both worlds is not. Or at least it should not be. Dark souls has a very fantasy and grim origin to humanity, Bloodborne is a bit more "normal" in that way but it has it's "curse" too, it's just instead of a fated dooming thing, is a divine enemy a whole specie even. Something i like to think is how the cycle feeds himself, and even try to bound people to kindled it. For me is a fight against fate and nature. What is more forced? linking the flame? Or trying to solve your problems in the dark? Another thing i think now is how it seems some characters seems the "dark way" as a form of enlightenment. They are not necessarily sharing the same thoughts or opinions about the cycle, like that girl in ds3 compared to the leader of the dark covenant in ds2 or even the serpent in ds1. But they all seem to think the element of dark brings something necessary. The girl and the serpent thinks the dark age is the age needed. And i'm with that way of thinking, a world bound by fate is a world enslaved. Maybe they could get lost in that way, and definitely they could suffer. But people subject to something like that would be better trying to find another way instead of feeding the cycle. And some ideas came to mind worth of another dark souls game ending. Like mixing the light with the dark or something like that, even if the witch of izalith showed how bad idea is troubling the souls of the first flame.
DS2 has a personal story, while DS1 and DS3 have a grander "fate of the world" story.
DS2 protagonist went out to seek a way to cure, or at least stop the curse. He had a life he desperately did not want to forget and everything led him to Drangleic. The intro cinemtaic is everything your character remembers - his wife holding his child in her hands. The last sliver of the reason he departed on his journey in the first place and even this one static image is crumbling before his very eyes. The game specifically does not linger on it in hopes that you will forget - that your character will forget - the true reason why you are here. NPC's even tell you about becoming a king, so you assume it is why you are here.
And then, you meet Lucatiel. If you do her questline, she will tell you that she journeyed here to find a cure for the curse. She does not want to forget her life. She is what most player characters were before they came into Drangleic, when they still knew their goal.
And it turns out that the stories were true - the cure does exist. If you go out of your way and collect the crowns, he will make them into one whole crown. Crown powerful enough to break the hollowing curse, if only for a single person.
When you stand before the Throne of Want you have a choice - to inherit it, or to reject it. Inheriting it always means one thing - the curse has overwhelmed you along your journey without you even noticing it. You lost your memories. Your quest ended in failure.
But if you by some miracle still remember that one still image from the prolouge and understand it's meaning... you walk away from the throne. You leave this cursed land to it's fate, having gotten exactly what you wanted out of it. You can go back to the most precious thing you ever had - to a life with meaning you yourself created.
My character has a wife and child??? I didn't know that
@@coredetta You see a brief glimpse of them in the intro cinematic. The last memory of them that you still have - a static picture of a woman cradling a child in her arms. But even this single picture is breaking down, literally melting before your eyes as you focus on it. You not knowing that just means the curse has taken away everything from you. You don't even remember why you did all of that. Why you went through all this horror, all this suffering, all this nightmare. Someone told you that you've come here to become a king and you had nothing else to latch on to, so you assumed it was your goal all along.
Now i want Dark Souls 3 to be about breaking the cycle.
Ding ding ding
Hot damn your a time traveler
this aged well i see lol
😳😳😳
ZAMN he good
I really enjoyed your interpretation of the Dull Ember and explanation of it.
I completely agree with your interpretation of the ages, and the Undead being a part of the cycle which comes as the age darkens. (And disappears for a time as a new age is kindled into existence)
Well done, great job on the video!
"The Maiden says it" got your mind on Demon's Souls Vaati? XD
oops
what did he use by the painting of Nishandra to turn himself human? It looked like a humanity
A human effigy
There is only one item in Dark Souls 2 that restores humanity XD
@@toporostopy only one consumable... but there is one other way to become human without effigy. and involves a certain much maligned area
@@xTerminatorAndy yeah, shrine of amana, but still, human effigy is the only consumable item in that matter
I think that Vendrick's entire journey to save Drangleic from the curse was a result of him knowing the cycle exists already. HE wanted to be the chosen. HE wanted to be the one to solve everything, so he fought the Undead Curse with all he had, but because Hollow because at the end of the day, his will was still not strong enough...
But as I said, conjecture.
i wish they hadn't completely pissed on dark souls 2 the way they have, DS3 constantly hits you in the face with DS1 referrences but the DS2 lore was pretty awesome I thought. the only thing i didn't like about 2 was the level design and a few of the mechanics changes but now its just a big waste
100% agree with you on this one. Dark Souls 2's lore, atmosphere, character design, etc. was still amazing. It's fine if people believe that Dark Souls is better, but DS2 was still good enough to the point where they didn't have to leave it in the ashes. I'm not sure if there are more than a couple references to Dark Souls 2 in Dark Souls 3 (correct me if I'm wrong). There really should have been some more to do with the DS2.
yeah there aren't many. Its just too bad that DS2 felt like it was taking place 1000s of years after DS1 and felt really unique and had only subtle hints tying it to DS1 but with all new lore born from all those years. but then DS3 feels like its only a few years later and that suddenly the world remembers anor londo and the gods that ruled there like it was yesterday and it just washes over DS2 like it didn't happen.
To be fair, just because DS3 came out (in our world) after DS2 does not mean that it takes place chronologically after 2. Time (and space) in Lordran is convoluted.
Shaun Richardson except items reference charcters from 2, like the shield of want and a couple other items talking about vendrick
+Nuke DaPeez yeah, i just watched a couple more videos and realized that was the case. Oh well :/
I get goose bumps just thinking about Dark Souls lore. I'm so excited to watch this
So, here's something additional that you didn't point out that, if I'm correct, you were trying to imply: all the great souls flourished anew after the fire was linked at the end of DS1, so it is quite possible that:
1) The Rotten is a reincarnation of Nito
2) The Lost Sinner is a reincarnation of the Witch of Izalith (relighting the first flame again are we?)
3) The "Old Paledrake Soul" from the dead dragon present during the Duke's Dear Freja fight is (or was, as it is dead again) a reincarnation of Seath the Scaleless
4) The only place where this doesn't hold up is the old iron king (it is possible that Gwyn might be represented by him or by Vendrick, but there's no substantial evidence for this)
5) Finally, the children of dark are implied to be living fragments of the "First being of dark", presumably Manus from the DKS1 DLC
Anyone find any of this agreeable?
Nah,i think it's all good
Interesting thoughts, though we do see the effects the remnants of the Witch of Izalith had on the burnt ivory king in the dlc, so it doesn't quite hold up.
Doesn't really work out, as Seath's soul is just a piece of Gwyn (larger, but the same as something a Silver Knight would have) and Manus is one of the great (original) souls, so the dark beings would be representing one if they were going that route... Which is weird.
When you realize there is even lore for ng+ lmao
Well it has the worst combat system of the 3 but they all have badass elements to them none of them suck tbh
Matter of opinion tbh i liked 3 for its visuals and smooth play ds1 forever hooked me and ds2 was there when both left me longing for more but my home and favorite is always gonna be 3 ok so what it was similar to 1 doesn't mean i didnt have just as much fun and spend tons of time with friends just fucking around and having fun 2 was ambitious but in my opinion was also quantity over quality where 3 was quality over quantity and 1 was good balance of both
topple what’s so wrong with choking on DS1 until death ? You’re making it sound as if it’s a bad thing.
@topple You realise that ds 2 goes against everything ds 1 it's a mislead shit show of luck has a far greater impact then skill a lot of the time and thats not dark souls. It has the opposite vibe and theme. It says from the start u will suffer u will die laughing at u in ur face just give. Up ds 1 has keep going u can do it, dont u dare go hollow etc. If miyazaki was apart of the game it would have been so much better. The bosses r 90% dog shot in multiple ways including quantity over quality and being shit. Who wants to level up estus drinking speed or invincibility frames. Yuck. And my personal opinion on life gems is it ain't broke it works we like it lets change it make it yuck and arguable potentially easier bc u have 9000 life gems. Its clunkier and heavier then ds 1 aswell. I can go on. Its not dark souls if the name changed it would be a lot better. But I don't want a dark souls thwt has little to do with dark souls and lower quality mechanics etc
@@XDthedevilsrejectsXDlol no, Dark souls 2 combat is better than DS1, it fixed many annoying things, and it felt far more responsive.
Vaati's voice has really mellowed out over the years, gotten a more soft-spoken Storyteller vibe to it.
i am on my first playthrough and cant wait to watch your lore videos!!! they are the best!
You are a good narrator and you speak clearly, nice vid bro
One neat little detail is if you're playing for the first time there's a very high probability Nashandra curses your character so usually the cinematic would have you assume the throne as a hollow. It changes the tone a bit from the sort of noble sacrifice vibe you get here especially if you're wearing some banged up mismatched set of armor you looted off a rotting corpse.
Wait, so, no matter what you (or any Undead) does, the world is doomed to continually cycle into disrepair and collapse? That's incredibly depressing. And rather pointless.
Right, you got the Dark souls Point. Depressing and pointless. Tragedy, I love it!
Except that rather than a hero being needed to keep civilization growing and healthy, Dark Souls needs a hero to basically start the world over again from scratch, every time. If he feels like it, because even if he doesn't apparently it doesn't matter, because someone else will eventually do it anyway, somehow. And it's apparently pointless to try to prevent things from getting that bad in the first place, because you can only 'save the day' after it's already basically completely lost to begin with. Hooray!
SaltyWaffles So? That's what life is. We're born, we die, and eventually it was all for nothing. But it's worth it, because temporary life and happiness is still life and happiness. Linking the flame isn't pointless, any more than it was pointless for us to be born just because someday we're bound to die.
Tanner Fredrickson :| I think you're missing the point here, also that's not what life is... I mean.. where the fuck do you get that from mate? People do things all the time that makes a HUGE fucking difference, I mean.. for fucks sake if things kept going over and over and over again with it being for "nothing" then we wouldn't have things like internet. The pure creation of the internet is something ungodly by itself.
Froztarlozt That *is* what life is. You think the internet really makes a difference to dead people?
Vaati's voice is deeper than the abyss in these videos holy shit
I love how you are playing Demon's souls music in the background! It just ties all the souls games together for me. Keep up the good work!
This video shows exactly why I prefere a series bearing a same storyline/lore. Look at how complex you can get, especially on a game like Dark Souls, where there is so much room for interpretation. I hope there is a Dark Souls 3 or even a different named game, that spots the same storyline. Dark Souls 1 ends, after some time 2 begins, goes on and on. I could play this game forever. Look how they linked the two games! Amazing work in my humble opinion! And I feel like it would be such a huge waste to just toss away all this "creative potential" that resides within the lore.
Great video Vaati! I sure as hell feel like this Patreonage was one of the most well spent money in some time! Great work as always
Unpopular opinion, but 2 is actually my favorite. And I think the reason why is that extra layer of bleakness from the people in Drangleic, unlike 1 and 3, not knowing the history of the world. They don't really know about the Lord souls or their origins. It was Aldia alone that began to piece it together. The world of 2 just feels much more adrift then the others, not just in a state of decay.
This is why I like 2 as well. 1 shows great and powerful civilisations that have almost entirely fallen apart, despite the efforts of the most powerful beings desperately trying to hold together that which remains. 3 shows a time where the very world itself is essentially rotting and falling apart after seemingly eternal cycles, with the refusal of the lords of cinder to rekindle the flame just furthering this decay.
2, however, has that bleakness you describe. It is a world very separated through time from Lordran and Lothric, where the events and characters of 1 are nearly all forgotten but their impact is felt in places from the somewhat inevitable feeling of the cycling system's inevitability. The variety of locations, people and history that both appear and are mentioned emphasise how much of this new world there is, with so little of it having any relation to the other games at all. The environments themselves feel less like they are part of a crumbling society or a dying world, but rather that the places simply fell into ruin long ago and simply remained that way, with some creatures or hollows still remaining or having moved in. Other places still feel quite functional in their own ways, like harvest valley, no-man's wharf, dragon shrine, the growing community in Majula and more.
From this bleakness and a world where it can feel like we are just exploring what was destroyed long ago or that which still manages to work in its small part of the land, unrelated to other matters, I can't help but get a feeling of peacefulness from Drangleic and can find the world quite calming.
i by no means read all the comments on this video but i get really pissed off by the people who bash the hell out of dark souls 2. sure everyone is entitled to their opinion but some people are acting like going from DS 1 to DS 2 is like going from driving a lambo to a rusted out honda civic. i personally enjoyed DS 1 more but that doesn't mean i didn't love DS 2. i have come to believe that most people think their special or something if they don't like DS 2, some people DO HAVE VALID REASONS but the people bitching about it being a copy paste of DS 1 are the same people complaining about how DS 2 is different from DS 1!! i'm strictly a PvE player so i don't have a horse in the PvP race so i'm not trying to speak for all DS fans out their but god damn people sure do love to hate DS 2 when even if it is weaker than DS 1 it's still an amazing game.
TL;DR- DS 2 is still an amazing game regardless of how good DS 1 was. sorry for writing a novel.
EDIT*- why can't we all just love the Dark Souls games for what they are, AMAZING GAMES!
Exactly, they're all fantastic games.
Dark souls 2, and demons soul are my 2 favorite games. The pvp is awesome on dark soul 2. Dark souls 1 pvp really blows.
I don't like Dark Souls 2. It seems like the developers wanted to recreate what Dark Souls 1 was without understanding what made it so great in the first place. That was a real disappointment for me. Tha said DS2 is still a great game on it's own and definitely better than most other games in the genre. It isjsut the high expectation that DS1 has left me with that caused my lack of enjoyment of DS2.
Dark souls 2 is really great but it didn't seem to fit the world 1 set up. It was different to 1 not unlike the way 1 was different to Demon's Souls.
The best thing they could do for Dark Souls II is to remove the snap points from the movement. It was such a baffling decision. I still play Dark Souls II today. Especially the DLC.
i love coming back and watching these whenever i have a dark souls throwback.
The quality of these videos is ridiculously high! Love em!
"Half as long, twice as bright." - Cole McGrath and Zeke Dunbar
inFAMOUS 2
I honestly thought the ending was actually very satisfying. I didn't have many questions.
This is the most thorough and well thought out assumption of dark souls i've ever watched! Thanks for putting this out, I would never figure all this out myself haha
This video will be a forever classic but 10 years later, I'm wondering if a new version with higher production value could be made.
I'm thrashing around in joy now that you're back on your lore videos!
I get the impression that during the game, you're actually living in an Age of Dark, with Nashandra acting as the Dark Lord, which would suggest either ending in DS1 is still canon, as either choice just results in an extreme that will result in a return to equilibrium, the natural state of a slowly burning fire.
Cute, but very boring. Endless cycle tropes don't really lead anywhere, they just sound interesting on paper, until you realize you then have to either break the cycle or remake the same game over and over again. Which is what DS2 was. A poor direction to take the series, but probably the result of heavy handed eastern philosophical influences. The world just gets reorganized and scrambled, but achieves nothing. Maybe it has more resonance with asian audiences?
A theoretical DS3 would have to be about why the cycle began to begin with, and perhaps on how to ultimately end it, and whether zero life is better than an eternity of repetition. Which I guess would be a fitting ending to a trilogy of games set in such a static setting.
SMT3 much?
The game where they break the cycle though is normally pretty awesome
Plague's theoretical DS3 has all my want.
Schrödinger's Flame?
Nashandra is there to stop you which means the Age of Dark didn't really start yet in the game.
dood ur fucking poetic it was beautiful lol
This is why i watch your videos. Gives me an entirely new perspective. I thought the ending was poorly done and when you and others put a spin on it i don't feel disapointed. I absolutely can't wait for you to start diving into the rest of the game.
It's so wonderful to play Dark Soul 2 after some years again and to have your videos which accompany this new playthrough.
Holy cow, Vaati had so much more energy and enthusiasm in ye olde days.
if that were true then the cycle has happened 5 times before (judging by the five sublime bone dusts that you can find) however, the plot also allows for an unlimited amount of sequels to occur... bravo from soft... bravo
This comment didn't age well sadly as the franchise is over. But hey now we have Sekiro and Elden Ring!
Hey VaatiVidya, I don't know if you paid attention or not but did you look at the bonfires in (at least) Dark Souls 2? They're remains. Skulls, bones, and all that. I figure you'd like to explore a little lore into that if you never paid attention.
Maybe undeads sacrificed themselves for the fire and thus that's why feeding them humanity strengthens them? When you're hollow, you get more powerful when you use a humanity so... Yeah?
9:15 That was possibly the shortest annotation asking for likes I've seen.
making your character of DS2 resemble the wife of the undead of DS1 (intro) was a really, really nice and subtle touch. Another great video as always.
"With the dying of the flame comes the curse of the undead, and kindling it will break the curse". It's so obvious yet I never thought about it like that. My own interpretation of what is what hadn't progressed as far as yours, and this piece of insight (from DS1 no less) is just what I needed. Thanks.
Why would anyone Dislike this? I just don't get it
Because the majority of Vaati's DS2 videos only explain what most hardcore Souls fans figured out after their first or second playthrough.
Joey Pangerl Why is that a reason to dislike his video than?!?!
Joey Pangerl
Lol, elitist.
They didn't want to feel.
Or maybe they didn't Praise the Sun enough
I really want Vaati to narrate everything in my life....
Vaati is the only person who can match Morgan Freeman's voice
so my days of standing in the kiln with a torch was all for nothing?
I can't explain to you how much I love this channel
Holy shit this video is from 2014? That speaks a lot of the quality of vaati, consistent great quality vids for years
I love how this game guides you into artistic interpretation. I interpreted DS 1 and 2 as like one person commented "existentialist", and I feel like it's nihilistic too. I see the theme of the game as what 'is', 'is', like millions of years of inevetable pain and death that just comes with existence that we just have to accept but in doing so it kind of disconnects us from compassion for fellow man. And in the nihilistic aspect I see it as an empty, cold game, not that everything is out to kill you for sport but just to fulfill the big picture of this 'isness' of inevitable death and pain.
I hope some of this makes sense. I just see the game as a "big picture" stretching all of the pain and death that has ever occurred in time and putting it into this game. Every NPC seems to be aloof to the players existence and the cinematics of 1 and 2 just make you feel like your in an epic world of deadly beasts and also small completely empty, mindless hollows.
Vaati, about the "Chosen Undead" repeating over and over, I thought the idea was that there was no Chosen Undead, the idea of it was just being used by Gwyndolin to control the player in Dark Souls 1?
Pretty much. No one is chosen, as there's no fate in play, it's just sheer coincidence that one of the undead (who has their sanity) wants to link the fire
In the general, powerful, tired words'o Simon from Bloodborne, "So our forefathers sinned, we cannot carry their burden forever..."
Gavin Christenson praise the bloodmoon
Appaloosa Hill Praise the Great Ones
My theory is that the hollow curse is brought about by the flame itself to ensure its continued survival. Everytime the flame might die, the hollows start to run rampant and somebody decides to link the flame to deal with the problem. Thus ensuring the flame stays lit. I'm probably wildly wrong but it seems like a cool idea to me.
Excellent as always VaatiVidya.
I came to the souls series late with DS ps5, I skipped over DS2 because of all the hate. I finally played it and beat it and I fucking love this game. WTF is everyone talking about? I get some criticisms but people made it sound like it betrayed the series or something. It’s such a great game
In Dark Souls 3 they better let you either cure the curse and stop the endless cycle or just end it with the whole world being destroyed or something... because what's the point of caring about a "story" if in the end it achieves NOTHING!
And loose a big fat money making franchise, nope.
It is not the end that matters, but the journey.
Dragon Dogma has kinda the same way of making you think you broke a cycle but then all you did was just repeating the cycle again.
Welcome to the reality of life ;) It's about the journey.
When you die, all you ever achieved in life will means nothing. I guess that is the point.
Dark Souls 3 would be centered around an undead breaking the cruse of life.
La Nausée I don't know what you mean but..i hope the next DKS is good !! hehe
+La Nausée Notsurprising, considering its the last on the series. Still, nive prediction.
+Nigga stole my Yoshi! nice*
no if curse is broken no more souls = no more money.. need to make till dark soul 10
+ex DOGE DS3 is the last one there making.
Still playing, still watching. Thank you Vaati.
I love it when there are so many unanswered questions. It really makes everything more interesting. In general, I dislike games that tell you exactly everything that's going on, compared to games where there are a lot of unanswered questions, but also connections that you find by yourself.
In my head canon, Dark Souls 1 and 3 are the two games where character names don’t matter, so I give them the name ‘Chosen Undead,’ and ‘Ashen One.’
Dark Souls 2, however, I like to imagine was a character that we have met. I like to imagine that the main character from Dark Souls 2 is Slave Knight Gael from the DS3 DLC.
It makes sense to me from a thematic perspective: he walked away from the throne to look for something else, and found Ariandel, a world that resides in a painting. Gael sought to build a new world with the painter, and come the events of DS3, Gael and the Ashen One find the blood of the Dark Soul to make a new painting, which ultimately leads to Gael’s loss of sanity and ultimate demise.
Thanks to the Ashen One, Gael and the painter were able to begin reconstruction of a new world that was free from the cycle of fire and dark. The Ashen One goes on to fulfill their purpose, but there is hope of a world to come in the future for the inhabitants of the dying world.
I don’t know if this TRULY makes sense from a lore perspective, so feel free to let me know if this theory has holes in it or if you think it holds water!
Gael is mysterious and has lived a very long time. I personally believe he was a Baldur Knight from DS1 given the similar armor and the red cloak. But much of Dark Souls is about interpretation.
Endless repeating cycle of extinction... Hmm... Reminds me of something. So in Dark Souls 3 we will have 3 differently colored endings and our choices won't matter.
FromSoftware. Not EA. FromSoftware is a great company. However i believe another company just bought FromSoftware.
Paul Nope well you can continue it, end it, steal it, or usurp it now.
Its interesting how many aspects of Buddhism have found their way into this game. Nice to see.
+Dominik Bartel These are...? If you mean the cycle of reborn, that is more important to Hinduism.
I was literally just reading about Buddhism and the The Three Dharma Seals of Impermanence, Nonself and Nirvana. I kept coming back to my experience of Dark Souls 2. Nirvana is moving beyond life and death, being and non-being; to gain the power of the Crowns and reverse Hollowing is to move beyond light and dark, with the understanding that on the next playthrough, it must all be experienced again to regain that power.
I loved Dark Souls 2 more than 3, and I always felt that it was deeper than the other two. I think I'm finally beginning to understand part of why.
An interesting difference, though: In the first Dark Souls, linking the First Flame sets you on fire, ends the game and then you wake up back in your cell when you start NG+. It's heavily implied to be a sacrifice required to prolong the Age of Fire. In Dark Souls 2, sitting on the Throne of Want doesn't show you bursting into flames, and after the credits you actually return to Majula and can keep going until you manually start NG+. That kinda implies that sitting on the throne doesn't disintegrate you or anything, nor does it appear to fix the Undead Curse. (At least not right away.)
I love seeing how much better Vaati's voice kept getting the longer he made videos
"Waits eagerly for part 2" ‘︿’
Part 2 is out.
7:18 - 7:23 how many times am ı supposed to hear it again!?
Dark souls lore reminds me so much of Dragons dogma's lore
You know, its the other way around seeing Dark Souls is older.
Kaya Erikson Doesn't it depend which order he played them in? He said it reminds him of it, so he probably played Dragon's Dogma first.
Abby Ritter i'd still say its Dark Souls before Dragon's Dogma, but each to their own.
You provided a wonderful interpretation & I appreciate the platform of end-beginning, in gathering proofs of the supportive characters, their drives & needs to be fulfilled - while a new era was on the brink of manifesting. As per the great kiln, the birth of an illuminating light was granted & is much appreciated. I admire your analytic dissection & applaud your insights, VaatVidya. Bravo, Maestro !
The way you described the Age of Fire starting over and over again, made me think of a phoenix. Eventually it dies, but it's brought back to life in a continuous cycle. ...And it happens to be made of fire.
BUT! Each time the fire rekindled it is weaker and weaker until one day it dies fully, but without fire there is no dark, so will the whole world vanish completely until one day it is remade by someone or something and what will it even be?
That's some deep shit man
"In the Age of Ancients the world was unformed, shrouded by fog. A land of gray crags, Archtrees and Everlasting Dragons"
I'd assume it'd be kinda like a "reset", the world would go back to its natural state and dragons would rule again. Then hollows would find great souls again and the cycle would just be reborn.
the fire is an allegory of existence. light and dark are another for the cycle of life and death is began. The universe started from nothing creating positive and negative (fire and dark), and as a explosion it will contract and end all and create another universe( the cycle) until there is nothingness. And from nothingness it can begin again.
Considering demon souls was the same, i knew dark souls 1 choices didn't matter because the curse still exists. Sure Dark Souls is a spiritual successor and not a true sequel but the fact is it is the next game and takes alot of the core plot to that game.
Makes sense there is no choice but i just feel the game pointed you to kill vendrick yet you ended up killing nashandra made no sense throughout most of the dialog
Maybe they were going for the Nashandra is the reason why the curse returned. Think about it Nashandra's appearance looks like old Gravelord Nito, and it says she was a manifestation of the abyss. The abyss tried to consume the light in Dark Souls 1 creating the destroyed version of Oolacile. The curse may be a reaction of the humanity in humans trying to return to the abyss.
Myles Newman Yea cause humanity doesn't want to live in the light only dark. Not entirely sure how that makes sense.
I just wished instead of the game(Emerald Herald and Nashandra illusion at drangleic) didn't tell tel you to beat vendrick but rather Nashandra. Shanalotte(emerald herald) knew all along it was her yet said originally vendrick. It's just poor writing even if the lore makes sense and ends up a decent story
Maybe it was a trick for Dark Souls vets. The first game was designed for the main character to overthrow an old dying king. In a way its the same way here, but you also completely overthrow the monarchy (king/queen)
Myles Newman I suppose so, I am looking forward to the DLC for dark souls 2 though :)
I agree, Nashandra was dark and you can tell this by what is said in the game and the obviousness of the boss fight, she had planned the war with the giants. It sais she told Vendrick the king of the threat before she was ever queen. She wanted to take place on the throne next to him and plot to overthrow him to extinguish the flame and usher in an age of dark.
And then John snow stabs him
Im now convinced from software used this video to create ds3
love that cutscene in firelink elite knight saying farewell to iron tarkus
Vaati, you said that when the flame starts to fade the curse gets stronger to make appear another chosen undead and then you said that when we light the flame the curse disappear for a moment, a short moment. BUT the bonfire ascetic description says:
"Fire exhibits a connection to the curse, and when the flames grow stronger, so does the curse."
It seems like the opposite, doesn't it?
thats bc ds2 makes no sense in the overall ds lore
It's referring to curse of humanity, not explicity the undead curse but the darksign and the repression of dark between men which is strengthened by fire as the far exists to control the dark soul.
Hey Vaati, just wanted to let you know I may have stumbled onto a major discovery in dark souls 2 lore. More specifically what the hell Drangleic is.
This discovery takes the form of the item description for the Lingering Dragoncrest Ring sold (not soul traded) by Straid of Olaphis.
"A ring used long, long ago, in a land that existed where Drangleic does now..." "...Presumably, this ring was used by a high sorcerer, but no such proof remains."
This means that since Drangleic was built on top of many fallen kingdoms, one of these kingdoms was either Vinheim, or, one which I think is more likely, Lordran. The sorcerer referenced is most likely Logan, even though Griggs owned the ring. although other item descriptions bring to light the warped historical beliefs of people in the time dark souls 2 takes place, and Griggs was sort of an apprentice to Logan, which is why I think it is Lordran and not Vinheim. Not to mention the striking resemblance Heide's tower of flame has to Anor Londo, as pointed out in the heide's tower of flame video. It's entirely possible that Heide's tower of flame is merely a part of Anor Londo that we did not have the chance to explore in Dark Souls 1. The parts we did explore are now lost to the ocean. This may also mean that the throne of want, was, in fact, built on the site of the Kiln of the First flame, as I've heard some people theorize.
On it's own, Dark Souls 2 is not a powerful story. However, as a companion game to DkS 1 it is stellar.
And that is it's main failing, it depends too much on the perfect first game, so that it comes across as merely being a great game.
Yep I know it really sucks for fans
As a companion it is a massive step down though. In terms of level and boss design it's just not as creative or interesting. DS1 was basically level design 101. I would urge anyone who ever plans on making games to play it.
Lorewise, DS2 just shits on DS1 and is all like "lolz shit's pointless it's a cycle".
Dylanw857 Sorry person, can't take you seriously after that "finish on her face" comment.
Rick D dark souls 3 relies on ds1 even more
these videos have actually made the game ten times more enjoyable, thanks
Late to the party but that moment when you realize the Shield of Want in Dark Souls 3 is Vendrick's "King's Shield" in Dark Souls 2. I don't know what but Vaati talking about the Throne of Want and saying "want" several times in a row made me think of this.
I wish there was some true ending, Cycle going over and over again feels sad and makes My character life unaccomplished :( We were seeking the way to cure the undead curse, not to find out it will start all over again someday
It is sad indeed,hopefully *Dark* Souls 3 will have a better ending...
but reliting the flame is the cure as it stops the curse only when the fire is about to fade again does the curse of undeath start once more.
nemerus1990 yes but there is no feeling of accomplishment, the curse will come again
yes but think about it how did the age of fire begin? it begins in darksouls one with creatures like gwyn nito and the witch each taking a part of the fires power and the pygmy hollow finding the 4th last part. Every part of the fire seems to mean something i belive gwyns part was light and the witch part was life so this would mean nitos part was death and the last part the pygmy is dark. In both games we only collect 3 parts of the fire as it is never stated what happened to the pygmys part the dark part. only returning 3 parts seems to reset a cycle. this in turn makes me belive that if the fire part of dark was located and returned the endless age the dragons once lived in would be restored and this also explains why dragons went to war agaist gwyn and the others they knew what the fire actually was. So you see its becomes a full cycle that way and only the dragons knew this and they are extinct so in darksouls 2 you try as so many other times to find a solution to end this (curse) but fail and just relit the flame once more simply becouse nobody knows that last part actually even exist or what happened to it.
nemerus1990 some items has a description of gods from dark souls 1, but name of them changed
So is short DkS II is a cool reference to DkS while still a million answers from the 1st one remain unanswered.
And we got the general theme, or 'focus' of the game quite early on, at least I did.
But unlike the 1st one, it doesn't leave much to interpretation, or if you try to realize it in another way, it's too empty to even start building some other theory.
The only story worth mentioning in Dark Souls 2 is of the Prince and Princess of Alken and Venn. Thats the only thing interesting the rest is is just reused content from the previous game so there's no reason to speculate it at all we already have Dark Souls 1 to reference it. Dark Souls 2 is primarily fanfiction with added fluff to disguise it.
Dark Souls 99999 confirmed.
7 years later and the dark souls story still gives me a headache
You have one of the best commentary voices that I have ever heard.
I appreciate you trying to make the most out of From's obvious misstep with the franchise. To be honest this really plays out like fan fiction, I mean just the fact you have to use a lot of Dark Souls 1 videos to explain the story highlights the problem. Which would make sense, since a lot of the original devs are gone. I hope that this whole project beast is real.
Can you narrate my life? Cuz Im in love with your voice
your sick, get outta here.
So no need to play a Dark Souls 3, since everything always ends up going the same way again.
Dark souls 3 i think the canon ending is letting the fire fade
I first tried to read every item, weapon,spell, soul description as I came across them but that turned into a chore and I honestly could not be bothered anymore. So I'm glad these videos exist.
McDuff also has some great dialogue about the desire inherent in flames, how they reach out for life and yet how they burn to ash everything they touch. Although the fire symbolism is a bit belabored, it really does make for a game with a coherent philosophy that enables speculation