Are bonfires returning?

Well why would a new player be playing DkS II? They should be playing DkS I. When they get better, they can come back to DkS II.

I think if the dark hand worked better and maybe there were a way to use humanity to "un-kindle" a person's bonfire I'd be happy. They could keep that hidden so the host would expect 20 estus and see 5

hey its andres wrote:I think if the dark hand worked better and maybe there were a way to use humanity to "un-kindle" a person's bonfire I'd be happy. They could keep that hidden so the host would expect 20 estus and see 5

Being able to wipe out someones fire would be awesome, but i do see the dreadfulness of it. This idea, that you could perhaps use a dark hand sort of item if not even a dark hand to drain a bonfire of its power, and they would still receive a orb to invade you back. Only once though, or 3 or something. Not unlimited at least. That would be great, it wouldn't disable a person completely but would still be a heck of a crutch.


On topic more. Im not sure i want bonfires back as much. I like the idea of something new again. Bonfires were awesome at first, but the fire doesn't burn so bright anymore for me. And with a new person running the show, it would be good for him to try something new. Risky, but rewarding if he does well. And then if he does well it will be his doing, not a rehashed idea.

A nexus wouldn't work either, thats the world of boletaria. Which, off topic. I want a demons sequel/prequel.

Ok, so when I had a hard time with DkS I just should have played Demon's Souls first? I don't really agree to that logic. A sequal is not ment for only the existing fanbase

I've actually never touched Demon Soul's myself (watched others play it), and yet I consider Dark Souls to be my favorite game of all time. I'm sure I would've loved Demon Souls and maybe one day I will play it, but for now I have only Dark Souls which is not a bad thing by all means. I guess what I'm getting at is that we should not discourage people from playing the game. Sure we can be competitive in our attempts to botch their plans to complete a quest, but we should never discourage people from playing the game and joining the community.

This might sound stupid but what if bonfires are replaced with something else? Idea of resting would be the same as with bonfires. In the trailer we see the main character sitting in the pale moonlight while leanin to his sword. Looks to me like he is resting. What do u think about that? Maybe just my illusion...

Murkulanvippi wrote:This might sound stupid but what if bonfires are replaced with something else? Idea of resting would be the same as with bonfires. In the trailer we see the main character sitting in the pale moonlight while leanin to his sword. Looks to me like he is resting. What do u think about that? Maybe just my illusion...

If the world is indeed post dark souls, then it's a definite possibility that there is no more fire.. Hence in the darkness, the light of the moon could act as a 'safe place', just like the bonfires.

As I originally theorized (here, here and here), it's been confirmed that DkS2 is not a direct sequel or prequel to DkS. It seems the events in DkS2 occur far away from but in tandem with the events in the original.

My theory is no, I don't think we will see bonfires in DkS2. There are a couple of shots in the trailer where the presence of a bonfire is notably absent; one that comes to mind is the hero kneeling and resting his head on the hilt of his sword. There is a distinct lack of light from a fire in the shot. I point it out in my trailer analysis vid.

The developers have confirmed that time will play a significant role in the game. I speculate that respawning after death will be a method of rewinding time to certain checkpoints along the way. I speculate even further that the feather is an instrument of time manipulation and the notable "bird sanctuaries" we see throughout the trailer are the checkpoints.

Rampant speculation, yes, but I don't have a terrible record.

DE5PA1R wrote:As I originally theorized (here, here and here),The developers have confirmed that time will play a significant role in the game. I speculate that respawning after death will be a method of rewinding time to certain checkpoints along the way.

I think you may be right on the money.
Thats "IMO" the best speculation of what might happen with the next checkpoint system if it isn't bonfires. Im not so sure about the feather being an instrument of time travel, but its not a bad theory.
I think From can do better than a time traveling feather as the way to traverse through time, but who knows. I would like to see some clever way of implementing that mechanic. But will just have to wait and see.

Well just because it occurs in a different part of the world doesn't mean events aren't related. Have you guys heard of the "South Pole, North Pole" quote? They said it's not a DIRECT sequel, but this does not mean it is not a spiritual sequel. Also it seems that the director and Miyazaki have hinted that it does take place after Dark Souls.

I found Majora's Mask to have the greatest story to it and it is quite possibly my favorite Zelda game to date. If Dark Souls goes through a similar transition I will be very happy.

hey its andres wrote:Well just because it occurs in a different part of the world doesn't mean events aren't related. Have you guys heard of the "South Pole, North Pole" quote? They said it's not a DIRECT sequel, but this does not mean it is not a spiritual sequel. Also it seems that the director and Miyazaki have hinted that it does take place after Dark Souls.

What I think he meant was, that Dark Souls II is going to take place in the same world as Dark Souls, but not in Lordran. It's not a direct sequel because you are far away from Lordran, and the character is new. So it is a sequel, just not a direct sequel. And it's not a spiritual successor.

AND WHY YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT ZELDA

Why not?

hey its andres wrote:Well just because it occurs in a different part of the world doesn't mean events aren't related. Have you guys heard of the "South Pole, North Pole" quote? They said it's not a DIRECT sequel, but this does not mean it is not a spiritual sequel. Also it seems that the director and Miyazaki have hinted that it does take place after Dark Souls.

Well if it's only a spritual sequel it'll be just like the difference between demons and dark.. totally other worlds..

I think it's a direct sequel.. or maybe a prequel? Considering the time distortion lore that they whacked in to make sense of all the parallel worlds nothing would surprise me at this stage, pretty much anything could be kosh

4Gamer Interview:

4Gamer:
I’d like to talk more about Dark Souls II. Is there any connection to the original in terms of the feel of the world?

Shibuya:
It’s not a sequel in terms of story, but that doesn’t mean the feel of the world is completely different. The game is set in the same world as the previous title, but the story takes place in a different location and with different humans (players).

Dark Souls II is not a sequel to Dark Souls.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=505206

But since it is set in the same world, it has to be distantly related. I'm guessing you might hear "Hey, Great Lord Gwyn just *** died. Yeah, seriously man! Some naked guy with a club and crap shield just kicked his ***!" somewhere in the story.

Updated the wiki with the interview. I figured everyone had already read it.

And yeah, Gyon, subtle nods would be pretty sweet.

Like I said in another thread, I think that souls is gonna make its sequels on th elder scrolls model. Same world, but different regions and hundreds of years apart. They're trying to establish it as a AAA title

But Elder Scrolls will never be as hard, dark, soul crushing, or depressing as Dark Souls. They're two separate types of video games, in my opinion. Yeah, they're RPG's, but they're just too different to compare.

Gyonimizotetsu wrote:But Elder Scrolls will never be as hard, dark, soul crushing, or depressing as Dark Souls. They're two separate types of video games, in my opinion. Yeah, they're RPG's, but they're just too different to compare.

No. In fact, they're easy to compare. A narrative is a narrative; there are certain universal truths for telling a story.

Acarnatia wrote:Yes, there are certain archetypes that are used in both. The souls series uses and focuses on different story archetypes, though. The Hero's Journey isn't the only basic story template, and there are significantly varying versions of even the Hero's Journey. The stories of the Souls games and the stories of the Elder Scrolls games are quite different.

Archetypes? Hero's journey? Nobody brought that up.

It is by definition difficult to make a sequel to a stand-alone story. This difficulty is compounded if the conclusion is open-ended, and compounded exponentially if you plan on franchising. True for everything. Literally. Every. Thing.

DE5PA1R wrote:

Acarnatia wrote:Yes, there are certain archetypes that are used in both. The souls series uses and focuses on different story archetypes, though. The Hero's Journey isn't the only basic story template, and there are significantly varying versions of even the Hero's Journey. The stories of the Souls games and the stories of the Elder Scrolls games are quite different.

Archetypes? Hero's journey? Nobody brought that up.

It is by definition difficult to make a sequel to a stand-alone story. This difficulty is compounded if the conclusion is open-ended, and compounded exponentially if you plan on franchising. True for everything. Literally. Every. Thing.

They have already said the story isn't exactly a "sequel." It takes place in the same world, but at a different time and place and with different characters. It's more likely a simultaneous story.