Prequel???

I remember in dark souls they say that fire sorcery is gone and replaced by pyromancy, yet there we see the sorcerer using fire sorcery with a catalyst.

There are also lots of living dragons, the Undead Curse is still around, and bonfires still work. It's pretty much guaranteed to be a prequel

I don't necessarily see those things as being signs of it being a prequel. It's possible that dragons were thought to be extinct, but that there could be some that haven't been discovered.

Also, I admittedly don't quite get how the Age of Fire ties in with the Darksign and the undead curse, but the ending of Dark Souls is the player's choice, and it could just be that the "canon" outcome (if there is one) simply allowed the undead curse to continue.

it looks like a prequel for me right now but they didnt say anything about the lore right now.

I honestly think it will be neither.  like the very loose connection that dark souls had with demon souls. The mechanics were similar, but the lore was totally different.

IHateTheFourKings wrote:I don't necessarily see those things as being signs of it being a prequel. It's possible that dragons were thought to be extinct, but that there could be some that haven't been discovered.

Also, I admittedly don't quite get how the Age of Fire ties in with the Darksign and the undead curse, but the ending of Dark Souls is the player's choice, and it could just be that the "canon" outcome (if there is one) simply allowed the undead curse to continue.

I'll do my best to summarize the entire archives section of the forums to help explain my reasoning 

The only likely possibilities for there to be an amount of dragons in the numbers they've shown in the trailers are if the game takes place before the Four Lords battled them, or for this to take place thousands of thousands of years after the events of the first game and for the Ash Lake Dragon to have repopulated the species.  The first is very clear cut and simple, while the second assumes two things.  The first assumption is that dragons can breed at all, and the second is that dragons can breed asexually or there was an unknown, unmentioned second dragon to act as its partner to begin the process.  Remember, dragons in the Dark Souls universe are shown more as statues than living beings, and explicitly stated to be able to live forever, so they may not even be biologically capable of or have developed a need to reproduce because, after all, they're made of stone and they live forever.

(Minor spoilers in this paragraph) The existence of the bonfires also implies two things.  First is that this takes place sometime after the Age of Fire began and the First Flame's power became a main source of life in Lordran, and the second is that FROM has decided to make the "Link the Fire" ending canon and that this continues from that path.  While less concretely grounded in fact, alot of people agree that given how FROM has emphasized that they value player choice in the Souls games, they wouldn't make that step and invalidate anyone who decided to go for the "Dark Lord" ending.

(Major spoilers in this paragraph) The existence of the Undead Curse really only implies one thing.  In Dark Souls, we're told that the Undead Curse only came about when the Age of Fire was waning and was created as a long-planned development of the Pygmy as a way to usurp power over the other lords.  In Dark Souls, regardless of which ending was chosen, the Undead Curse would have been broken.  In the "Link the Fire" ending, the power of flame would have been restored and all remnants of the Dark Soul would go back into hiding.  In the "Dark Lord" ending, the Dark Soul would reconsolidate into the Chosen Undead and no longer be infecting humans with undeath.  This means the most likely scenario (especially considering that Dark Souls 2 seems to be heavily implying that you are the only, or at least one of the first few Undead) is that Dark Souls 2 takes place at the inception of the Undead Curse.  The only possibility for a sequel approach as opposed to a prequel that would allow the Undead Curse to come back is if, again, FROM makes the "Link the Fire" ending canon and Dark Souls 2 takes place at the end of the second Age of Fire brought about by the Chosen Undead.  This again relies on the assumption of a particular canon ending, and would make the second game's story simply a repeat of the first game's.

Then there's the hints shown in the Dark Souls 2 information we've recieved, the most obvious to me being that the Sorcerer can cast fire spells from what looks suspiciously like an Izalith Catalyst.  In Dark Souls, the Izalith Catalyst description states that long in the past when the Four Lords were in power, the Witch of Izalith and the Daughters of Chaos casted flame sorceries, with Pyromancy only developing after the decline of the Lords.  Obviously the implication here is that Dark Souls 2 takes place during this time in the past where fire was tied to sorcery.

I didn't get everything, and I probably didn't properly explain everything about what I did cover, but hopefully that's a start as to why I strongly believe this is a prequel and not a sequel 

SlothAlmighty wrote:I honestly think it will be neither.  like the very loose connection that dark souls had with demon souls. The mechanics were similar, but the lore was totally different.

Bear in mind that Dark Souls and Demon Souls were spiritually connect. Not lore-wise. Besides having the same combat mechanism and gameplay, they are still two different games.
The two dark souls game will probably be connect to one another in some way, though, it will most likely be a minor connection. I doubt much story from the first Dark Souls will be mentioned in the second game.

Miyazaki posted on FB or Twitter something along the lines of:
"Before the darkness, what would make the gods leave?"

I think there is no doubt about it being a prequel. Also the trailer shows Lordran in the distance. Making it look we're travelling towards it.

Some serious nerding on the floor will be done when this game is released.:razz:

Don't forget about One-eyed Black Dragon Kalameet in the cinematic trailer. Unless there were other One-eyed Black Dragons.

Why does it even matter if it is a prequel or not? It has been said on many occasions that both DkS and DkS2 will be loosely connected. In other words both game won't directly affect each other. The only connection is the shared universe. The only time when prequels matter is when they directly fit with the events of it's previous game, like Ghost of Sparta going into God of War II.

Could you go tell drakes in Valley of Drakes that they are extinct?
I'd like to get RTSR without causing a species to die out.
Next thing I know Greenpece will block Burg with protesters.

The connection I think will be like Alien and Prometheus, Alien was first, Prometheus was second but a prequel and was not known to be a prequel until the very end when a little bit was shown about the alien coming out.

If the 2 games were not meant to be tied together with lore, then they could have easily called it Dead Souls and it would have sold just fine.

I think the lore will tie together quite nicely in very intricate, but yet subtle ways.


***edit***

I say prequel all the way btw.

steveswede wrote:The only connection is the shared universe.  The only time when prequels matter is when they directly fit with the events of it's previous game, like Ghost of Sparta going into God of War II.

 Well seeing as how the Dark Souls takes place at the most influential summit of the world and the events determined have a world affect, I'd say it matters quite a bit for the setting alone.

Here's an interesting article that alludes to the plot somewhat.

http://clickonline.com/games/dark-souls-ii-narrative-details-unveiled!/18787/ wrote:The basic style of the story telling is the same. I feel that the user's imagination is much more fascinating than the story itself... At this moment, the actual numbers of NPC can't be revealed. However, it will be the same or a little bit more than the last title. The world is the kingdom once prospered in the past with a few survivors.

What do you guys think?

Thuggernaut wrote:Here's an interesting article that alludes to the plot somewhat.

http://clickonline.com/games/dark-souls-ii-narrative-details-unveiled!/18787/ wrote:The basic style of the story telling is the same. I feel that the user's imagination is much more fascinating than the story itself... At this moment, the actual numbers of NPC can't be revealed. However, it will be the same or a little bit more than the last title. The world is the kingdom once prospered in the past with a few survivors.

What do you guys think?

 Boletaria 2.0

Undiscovery wrote:

steveswede wrote:The only connection is the shared universe.  The only time when prequels matter is when they directly fit with the events of it's previous game, like Ghost of Sparta going into God of War II.

 Well seeing as how the Dark Souls takes place at the most influential summit of the world and the events determined have a world affect, I'd say it matters quite a bit for the setting alone.

If you look at this.

http://www.polygon.com/2012/12/19/3783452/dark-souls-2-staff-discuss-the-vga-trailer-and-what-having-real

It mentions that:

if Dark Souls was set in the North Pole, this one would be in the South Pole.

It also says:

There is no direct connection in the story between Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2, but the two games share a similar core, according to Dark Souls director Hidetaka Miyazaki.



This is why I say does it even matter if it is a prequel.  Sure it would be nice to know the timeline but after we do find out what use is it with Miyazaki spelling out that DkS will not be directly connected.

Pretty sure we all know that it won't be directly connected, but the reason why it matters is because people whom are interested in lore are interested in the timeline as much as anything.

When the heck did this happen? What was it like? Who was there? How did this happen? We want to know more about these events in the past, and I think that's why FROM is doing a prequel. It'll of course bring more questions, but it'll also pique our interest in what THE HECK happened out side of lordran, as all of these things happened in the history of Dark Souls. I'm getting tingles just thinking about it!

Even if it doesn't let us know at all what happened to the Sisters of Izalith, for example, I still want to know what happened to all the other kingdoms. We know nothing about them. Or, almost nothing. I want to know MORE. And FROM is baiting us with that, I'm sure.

JoeBroski09 wrote:Pretty sure we all know that it won't be directly connected, but the reason why it matters is because people whom are interested in lore are interested in the timeline as much as anything.

Or you could be one of those people who's just all "time in Dark Souls is distorted" and be done with it.

Reaperfan wrote:

JoeBroski09 wrote:Pretty sure we all know that it won't be directly connected, but the reason why it matters is because people whom are interested in lore are interested in the timeline as much as anything.

Or you could be one of those people who's just all "time in Dark Souls is distorted" and be done with it.

 Boooooooooooring.

As I said before, and will keep saying- I think FROM are looking to build their lore in the way the elder scrolls do it. Each game will be a different area in and different time (past/future/whatever), this way they can slowly build up the history of the countries/lands- astora, vinheim, carim etc whilst keeping it fresh because we explore the different lands and in different times to see how everything changes and progresses.

Whatever they do, it will presumably be in similar spirit to that.

In a way that's similar to the way I see it. I'll quote what I said to DaveControlLive.

"The way I think of it is that both Lordran and this new place are told to people in stories. Imagine you are brought up in a standard village, told many stories over the years, one is the story of the land of the gods Lordran, another is this story of a land where it's rumoured people have removed the undead curse. You become undead and choose to travel to this land to see if you can remove it"

Reaperfan wrote:

JoeBroski09 wrote:Pretty sure we all know that it won't be directly connected, but the reason why it matters is because people whom are interested in lore are interested in the timeline as much as anything.

Or you could be one of those people who's just all "time in Dark Souls is distorted" and be done with it.

The time distortion could very well be a direct and significant plot point.  Dark Souls even sets precedent for that.  The chosen undead is simultaneously a large influence at two points separated by a large amount of time, and is even the real perpetrator of a legend commonly attributed to Artorias.  It's canonical for phantoms who are dead (possibly for a while) to be summoned to the player's world, and in fact even for the player to alter the futures of such phantoms (Dusk, Solaire).

Depending on where they take the story, prequel or sequel might not matter so much as the character's overall impact on the timeline as a whole.

One thing that has interested me in both Demon's and Dark Souls is the player character himself.  This person is among the least tied to the lore in any discernable way, and while some of that is by necessity you nevertheless wonder how such a force comes to be and what happens after you stop controlling them.  Are we still *the* chosen undead in Dark Souls II?  Are we just *a* chosen undead...or undead at all?  It's easy to forget just how significant a character you really are since it's not really a focus, but regardless of the player's choices the player character is easily one of the most significant figures in Lordran's history in Dark Souls.

I don't think From will delve too deeply into the time stuff though.  Playing games with causality and sequences of events tends to lead to more plot loopholes than it does a strong and cohesive story, but if they handle the time distortion properly it could wind up as one of the better stories in gaming, too.

I'm merely stating that in DkS it is already told what happened to the other lands; that just about the entire world ventured to lordran to fullfill any number of prophecy after the undead curse. Also don't forget that DkS is only a vertically open world. Londo, Darkroot, New Londo, Tombs, Ruins, Kiln, it is all literally piled ontop of each other, that being the case it's hard to imagine just how 'different' these communities really were, all built around the pinnicle of existence in that world, The First Flame. That is why I say even if they aren't connected directly, it is impossible to discern the events in one are irrelevant to two.

On TheMelnTeam's note, it's interesting to note just how powerful the player character is by realizing that every soul you spend is a single life. That is how one gains power by absorbing the power of other souls, by SL 120 you've absorbed the power of 3.5 million people. While a Large Soul of a Great Hero has only 20k. Further more if you look at multiverse theory, the Chosen Undead is really just summoning and invading alternate timeline selves. I mean look at it, ever player plays the same role in their own universe. So it's also interesting to note that the PC seems to be the only in-game character with the unique ability to interact with his/her otherworld selves.

EDIT: P.S. In DkS they name the Asylum the NORTHERN undead asylum, so I could see how DkS2 will take place in the south. If there were only one asylum it wouldn't be distinguished as northern.

good point Undiscovery !