Dark Souls

[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.

IMO it does though. In Dark Souls 1 all the major plot characters are introduced in the intro. Nito, Seath, Gwyn, the Witches, Furtive Pygmy. All of them - save Pygmy kinda - are written about, talked about, presented as epic ancient beings whose actions have shaped Lordran. They slayed dragons thus the Age of Fire began (their very own Age), but soon the flames will fade. Witch tried to copy the flame and brought chaos upon the world. Gwyn sacrificed himself to the flame to reignite it (and kinda worked) but now the flame fades again. Introducing Undead who sets out and meets all these characters who have done all these crazy things and eventually after slaying Gwyn we have a choice.

Either prolong the Age of Fire like Gwyn did, or speed up the process and usher in the Age of Dark which will eventually show up anyway as legend has it. While the Fire option is indeed somewhat of a cycle the Dark ending is not. We are left with a choice, but we know that the Age of Dark will come eventually no matter the choice. We are led to believe (and righteously so) that the Age of Fire is special. It's a one time thing even though it can be prolonged. Beings have fought hard so shape the world as it was and they were unique characters with unique motives in their one of a kind age. But then Dark Souls 2 steps in and says: "well prolonging the Age of Fire is kinda what always happens and none of these dudes mattered cause it happened tons of times and Age of Dark? Never heard of it.". All that effective world and character building of 1 is just instantly wiped out. If something happens lots it's not special. If many people do the same thing it's not special. Dark Souls 1 emphasised the uniqueness of it all, gave identity to characters and Lordran, giving the player a meaningful existence in an otherwise doomed world. Dark Souls 2 takes that all down by its repetition.

The Havels armour was an example of the many rehashed lore and characters that Dark Souls 2 leeches on and takes away from their identity and meaning.