"Not-Velka" In Dark Souls 2 Trailer

Just noticed that the girl in the Dark Souls 2 trailer is wearing a tunic of sorts that bears a depiction of a bird, and she hands the unnamed warrior a feather. Normally I'd scream "VELKA!" and be done with it, but as much as I'd like to believe it's the goddess of sin, it isn't. Here's why:

1. She has brown hair, as far as I can tell. Velka has "raven-black" hair.
2. She hands over a raptor's feather, not a crow's--and we know she's associated with crows.
3. The bird on her shirt looks an awful lot like the eagle on the eagle shield--check it out:
woman: https://i.imgur.com/v3s8Y.png?1
shield: https://i.imgur.com/q8djr.jpg
This may be the revealing of a new covenant or alliance of sorts--it's hard to say due to the profound lack of information found in the description of the eagle shield. What we know is that the eagle shield is found in Blighttown, it has incredibly high lightning defense, and it's the most stable wooden shield in the game--that's about it. Not a lot to go on, but I'm sure there's something there. FromSoft wouldn't just throw down the eagle in a trailer and not expect people to question it, so I'm sure there's a reason.

As for Velka--we know that the Painted World of Ariamis is regarded as a sort of sanctuary for Velka worshipers (e.g., crow demons, occult ember, etc.). We also now know that the Painted World will be fairly prevalent in Dark Souls 2 (or at least important), since it has appeared in 2 trailers at this point. It would be fair to assume that Velka will be somewhere in the game, but it's hard to say where or how.

Maybe the player falls in love with velka.

Maybe...that might be taking options away from the player though, so it'd either have to be a huge plot device (which I would definitely be cool with) or they'd be changing their formula, which I wouldn't be so down with. Velka would be a damn fine mate though.

I always pictured Velka to look kind of like Yuria.
(physical appearance wise).

...Goddamn, yuria is hideous..

I agree, but the general structure of the hair and face is good. Velka needs to be dangerously beautiful though, in my humble opinion.

Shindori wrote:...Goddamn, yuria is hideous..

I'd hate to see what you think Beautiful is like if you can't except semi real. Most women arnt Barbie dolls.

Regardless of taste in beauty or whatever, I'd like to redirect the conversation to the subject of the eagle on her clothes/eagle shield. Anyone have any ideas/speculations? We know DS2 is a prequel, but there are bonfires, so Gwyn linked the fire...so somehow between then and Dark Souls, maybe a group of warriors with that symbol were created and then overrun?
Thoughts?

We don't know whether Dark Souls II is a prequel.

Okay, we don't "know" much of anything, but consider the following:
1) The Painted World is intact.
2) Dragons are everywhere.
3) There ARE bonfires--this is the most important to me because I feel like FromSoft wouldn't assume the player of DS made one decision or the other at the end of the game, leaving the only possible rationale for the bonfires being lit that it takes place between the kindling of the First Flame and the events of Dark Souls.

There is the whole "time is convoluted" thing, but I maintain that FromSoft only really introduced that concept to "explain" multiplayer and summoning.

Even if you try to make a case for some repair endeavor of the Painted World and a resurgence of dragons, I don't think you can explain the bonfires any other way.

But, if you think you can, I'd love to hear your input.

I believe I read somewhere that its time skipping, between the age of fire and Dark. but I may have just been reading someones speculations as I really didn't have time to read much. (in fact now I'm kind of pissed at myself that I cant find the article).

prophetteonit wrote:Okay, we don't "know" much of anything, but consider the following:
1) The Painted World is intact.

But we dont know if it is the same world featured in DkS,IMO the painted world was created by Ariamis based on the land we see in DkS2

I really don't think it's the painted world. *If you look around while in the painted world, you can see that the mountain is surrounded on all sides by cliffs. I don't see that in the DkS2 equivalent of the area. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. But still, if you look at the two areas, you'll notice that the architecture is drastically different in the two spots. I remain unconvinced that it's the painted world.

Conrack wrote:I believe I read somewhere that its time skipping, between the age of fire and Dark. but I may have just been reading someones speculations as I really didn't have time to read much. (in fact now I'm kind of pissed at myself that I cant find the article).

Might it be this one? http://thenerdybomb.com/dark-souls-2-preview/

Sargerus wrote:

prophetteonit wrote:Okay, we don't "know" much of anything, but consider the following:
1) The Painted World is intact.

But we dont know if it is the same world featured in DkS,IMO the painted world was created by Ariamis based on the land we see in DkS2

That's a really good point. I'll maintain that I think it's at least what the Painted World is based on, but yeah, I can definitely see that.

Werdax wrote:

Conrack wrote:I believe I read somewhere that its time skipping, between the age of fire and Dark. but I may have just been reading someones speculations as I really didn't have time to read much. (in fact now I'm kind of pissed at myself that I cant find the article).

Might it be this one? http://thenerdybomb.com/dark-souls-2-preview/

That's the one, thanks for that. I don't Believe that's the painted world, but it may be that Ariamis painted the place based off of a real location.

[quote="prophetteonit"]Okay, we don't "know" much of anything, but consider the following:

1) The Painted World is intact.

The Painted World of Ariamis is a world contained within a magical painting. What we've seen thus far indicates that the location in Dark Souls II is not within a painting.

Of course, we see evidence that the Painted World is very similar to the location in question, but the most reasonable conclusion is that Ariamis drew inspiration from this land when making his/her painting. Not that they are the same place.

2) Dragons are everywhere.

A) The ancient stone dragons are fundamentally different from the dragons/wyverns/drakes we've see in Dark Souls and Dark Souls II.
B) Not all ancient stone dragons were wiped out in the war; see Everlasting/Stone Dragon of Ash Lake.
C) Kalameet is one example of an "ancient dragon" that survived just fine right up until the destruction of Oolacile.
D) It's unknown how many dragons or dragonkin survived the war. There could be thousands outside of Lordran even during the events of Dark Souls.

3) There ARE bonfires--this is the most important to me because I feel like FromSoft wouldn't assume the player of DS made one decision or the other at the end of the game. Leaving the only possible rationale for the bonfires being lit that it takes place between the kindling of the First Flame and the events of Dark Souls.

You're making a huge leap between the first and second sentence. Yes, there are bonfires and yes, it must be after the first Undead outbreak (shortly before Gwyn kindled the Flame). There is no other way the bonfires could exist.

But it's just as likely the games' timelines overlap as it is that the game is a prequel.

There is the whole "time is convoluted" thing, but I maintain that FromSoft only really introduced that concept to "explain" multiplayer and summoning.

Agreed.

Even if you try to make a case for some repair endeavor of the Painted World and a resurgence of dragons, I don't think you can explain the bonfires any other way.

But, if you think you can, I'd love to hear your input.

Done.