Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete for President
Im hoping Miyazaki will stick true to his former self and not make a sequel to Bloodborne.
Although I can only speak for Dark Souls 2 I really think it did not even come close to the greatness that was Dark Souls 1. A lot of things 2 does with the plot takes away from the meaning of 1 and I refuse to acknowledge it being canon. Why didnt they set Dark Souls 2 in a different part of the world during the Age of Dark and not reference 1 at all? Instead we get cringe worthy shields with Solaire on it and every big plot character from 1 they put so much effort in to present them as epic beings of the history of Lordran is brought down by the "oh its just a cycle" thing. I hate it.
These games and their way of storytelling work best on a clean slate where every aspect of it is new, because exploration is such a huge part of it. Encountering familiair things during while "exploring" takes away from the experience.
I cringed when I found Havels Armor in Dark Souls 2 and when I heard there was an Onion Knight with similar name and role as Siegmeyer in 3 I lost all hope for it to be any good.
Dark Souls II's plot does not take anything away from DS1. The world of Dark Souls is cyclical, it was even this way in the original DS1.
Also, how does having an armor set make you lose hope in a game? I'm really confused by this.
I just finished getting the platinum trophy for Dark Souls II. I have to say, it's a really really good game. I didn't enjoy it as much as the original (like pretty much everyone else), but it's still a fantastic game and a worthy sequel.