Current Events > They should make Dark Souls 4

(+) Yeah! (+)

That would be nice
---

they gave DS3 a good send off, so maybe Demon's Souls 2 instead
---

Demons Souls is done. when it ends it splits into 2 timelines based on which ending you got. the good ending leads into Bloodborne. the bad ending creates the Dark Souls timeline

Nah, they should make more soulsborne eventually, though.
---

boxington posted...

they gave DS3 a good send off

This, at least lore-wise. The gameplay and settings were still getting progressively worse after DS1 though, so I'm worried a DS4 would continue the trend.

Still surprised we got a DS1 remaster instead of a DeS remake, but I'm not complaining.

Vertania posted...

This, at least lore-wise. The gameplay and settings were still getting progressively worse after DS1 though, so I'm worried a DS4 would continue the trend.

ds3 combat was good but a bit too floaty imo
---

Vertania posted...

Still surprised we got a DS1 remaster instead of a DeS remake

Im not. From what I understand, the Demons Souls name is owned by Sony. Hence when they wanted to go multiplat with the series, they had to rebrand it as Dark Souls. If they want to remake Demons Souls or do a sequel, itll have to be PS exclusive.
---

Tezlok posted...

Demons Souls is done. when it ends it splits into 2 timelines based on which ending you got. the good ending leads into Bloodborne. the bad ending creates the Dark Souls timeline

wait what
---

Vertania posted...

boxington posted...

they gave DS3 a good send off

This, at least lore-wise. The gameplay and settings were still getting progressively worse after DS1 though, so I'm worried a DS4 would continue the trend.

Still surprised we got a DS1 remaster instead of a DeS remake, but I'm not complaining.

I disagree.

I thought the gameplay in DS3 was leagues above its predecessors, and even though it didn't have the interconnected world DS1 did, the actual level design was superior
---

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Tezlok posted...

Demons Souls is done. when it ends it splits into 2 timelines based on which ending you got. the good ending leads into Bloodborne. the bad ending creates the Dark Souls timeline

wait what

No it doesnt. Thats apparently a fan theory that the dev denied.
---

Romulox28 posted...

ds3 combat was good but a bit too floaty imo

My biggest complaint is that they kept making enemies and their placement more and more frustrating as the series went on. I played DS3's two DLCs for the first time back to back and was ready to quit the series for good by the end of them.

The actual combat was pretty good, it's just the enemies that ruined it. They were more fast-paced like Bloodborne, but there wasn't the health recovery mechanic to compensate for it.

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Tezlok posted...

Demons Souls is done. when it ends it splits into 2 timelines based on which ending you got. the good ending leads into Bloodborne. the bad ending creates the Dark Souls timeline

wait what

it's a fan theory, where one ending continues a world where souls are used (Dark Souls), and another ends that practice (Bloodborne), iirc.
---

also the evil ending turns the world into a dark and hellish place. the opening cinematic for Dark Souls 1 shows the primeval world of monsters and demons and shit. I think that's while the world was reforming after the darkness spread all over and then eventually things settle down again maybe thousands of years later and you find yourself in Dark Souls

didn't things go dark in the Dark Souls series because Gwyn and the other lords killed off the dragons, which led to the world starting to age/decay, or whatever

idk if any of the Demon's Souls endings contributed to that
---

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

If they want to remake Demons Souls or do a sequel, itll have to be PS exclusive.

Bloodborne did just fine as a Sony exclusive. There's a big market of PS4 owners who never owned a PS3 and never played Demon's Souls. The game had a ton of issues, including unrefined multiplayer and game-breaking item duping. A remake/remaster would make it much more enjoyable. Plus the servers are getting shut down this month.

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

No it doesnt. Thats apparently a fan theory that the dev denied.

The way I see it, they would have had to deny it because of copyright issues over DeS being a Sony exclusive. Dark Souls was supposed to be a separate series, so admitting it's a sequel could have breached the deal somehow.

In any case, the Souls series loves being as ambiguous as possible with it's lore. It's not set in stone, but it's a solid enough theory and is fun to go with.

Vertania posted...

Romulox28 posted...

ds3 combat was good but a bit too floaty imo

My biggest complaint is that they kept making enemies and their placement more and more frustrating as the series went on. I played DS3's two DLCs for the first time back to back and was ready to quit the series for good by the end of them.

The actual combat was pretty good, it's just the enemies that ruined it. They were more fast-paced like Bloodborne, but there wasn't the health recovery mechanic to compensate for it.

personally i felt like DS3 was kind of like a watered down bloodborne when it came to combat. nothing really felt weighty like in DS1 or 2, you basically always had an acrobatic flippy guy all the time with your character, and everything is sped up as a result
---

boxington posted...

didn't things go dark in the Dark Souls series because Gwyn and the other lords killed off the dragons, which led to the world starting to age/decay, or whatever

idk if any of the Demon's Souls endings contributed to that

Killing the dragons didn't cause that.

boxington posted...

didn't things go dark in the Dark Souls series because Gwyn and the other lords killed off the dragons, which led to the world starting to age/decay, or whatever

before that was a world full of mist and monsters. i'm talking about the very beginning of the cinematic when it talks about "life and death. heat and cold." and shows "archtrees" everywhere. that is the promordial world I mean. and I am saying the ending evil cinematic to demon souls leads into that world

Tezlok posted...

before that was a world full of mist and monsters. i'm talking about the very beginning of the cinematic when it talks about "life and death. heat and cold." and shows "archtrees" everywhere. that is the promordial world I mean. and I am saying the ending evil cinematic to demon souls leads into that world

That mist mentioned there is supposedly the same colorless fog from DeS that brought all the demons avout in the first place. Lordran is a separate part of the world from Boletaria and DS1 takes place a long time after DeS.

What really sold me on the theory is that DkS3 had the damn Storm Ruler in it. It's not like the Moonlight Greatsword that From throws in every game just because, it's the same sword with the same exact powers from DeS.

Vertania posted...

boxington posted...

didn't things go dark in the Dark Souls series because Gwyn and the other lords killed off the dragons, which led to the world starting to age/decay, or whatever

idk if any of the Demon's Souls endings contributed to that

Killing the dragons didn't cause that.

it's been a while, I guess.

Tezlok posted...

boxington posted...

didn't things go dark in the Dark Souls series because Gwyn and the other lords killed off the dragons, which led to the world starting to age/decay, or whatever

before that was a world full of mist and monsters. i'm talking about the very beginning of the cinematic when it talks about "life and death. heat and cold." and shows "archtrees" everywhere. that is the promordial world I mean. and I am saying the ending evil cinematic to demon souls leads into that world

idk, with the Dark Souls series, we're talking since the beginning of the world, and the world going through many cycles and ages

and I think the setting is also important - if one of the endings from Demon's Souls, which takes place in a medieval setting, it'd be weird, IMO, for the world to start over only to lead to another medieval setting

at least in the Dark Souls series it makes sense, where things don't start over, but build over different kingdoms instead
---

boxington posted...

idk, with the Dark Souls series, we're talking since the beginning of the world, and the world going through many cycles and ages

and I think the setting is also important - if one of the endings from Demon's Souls, which takes place in a medieval setting, it'd be weird, IMO, for the world to start over only to lead to another medieval setting

at least in the Dark Souls series it makes sense, where things don't start over, but build over different kingdoms instead

The only time the world really "started over" was in DS3. That's why everything was converging together and getting warped.

The endings of DeS didn't really start a new cycle though, things just gradually turned into DkS/BB (according to the theory).

idk if they started over in three, but coming to an end by converging together, as you said

edit: or maybe you're right, and things eventually contract before they expand again
---

Tezlok posted...

Demons Souls is done. when it ends it splits into 2 timelines based on which ending you got. the good ending leads into Bloodborne. the bad ending creates the Dark Souls timeline

.....wuuuuuut
---

Vertania posted...

boxington posted...

idk, with the Dark Souls series, we're talking since the beginning of the world, and the world going through many cycles and ages

and I think the setting is also important - if one of the endings from Demon's Souls, which takes place in a medieval setting, it'd be weird, IMO, for the world to start over only to lead to another medieval setting

at least in the Dark Souls series it makes sense, where things don't start over, but build over different kingdoms instead

The only time the world really "started over" was in DS3. That's why everything was converging together and getting warped.

The endings of DeS didn't really start a new cycle though, things just gradually turned into DkS/BB (according to the theory).

Drangleic?
Dark Souls 2 saw all the Lord souls finding new owners. "Many kingdoms had risen and fallen" or whatever. It's a cycle. And it's prolonging the inevitable. T hats why things are converging in 3. The world should have been able to move on from the Age of Fire centuries ago, but can't and has grown stagnant.
---

_MorningStar posted...

Drangleic?
Dark Souls 2 saw all the Lord souls finding new owners. "Many kingdoms had risen and fallen" or whatever. It's a cycle.

It didn't physically reset in DS2 though. Drangleic is a different part of the world from Lordran.

Yes, the souls and certain things do cycle, but the world itself only ever comes to an end in DS3

Vertania posted...

_MorningStar posted...

Drangleic?
Dark Souls 2 saw all the Lord souls finding new owners. "Many kingdoms had risen and fallen" or whatever. It's a cycle.

It didn't physically reset in DS2 though. Drangleic is a different part of the world from Lordran.

Yes, the souls and certain things do cycle, but the world itself only ever comes to an end in DS3

Fair enough.
---

IMO, embracing the dark is the "good ending" in DaS.
---

EbonTitanium posted...

IMO, embracing the dark is the "good ending" in DaS.

The Dark Lord ending is absolutely the good ending. The curse keeps appearing because the flame is fading. Just let it die.
---

I read that the hollow/undying state is likely the default for humans in Dark Souls, and that the gods rekindling the fire can be seen as a punishment since it brings death

and that humanity belongs to the dark
---