Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne made a decent amount of sense to me before I looked anything up. The others are kind of a blur story-wise.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Do you understand the story of Dark Souls?
- Thread starter Deleted member 17402
- Start date
This is pretty disappointing people think this. If you dig into it, you start to notice the sci fi elements. Most medieval fantasy isn't so deeply intricate.
I like to watch videos about Dark Souls lore ... but I have a lot more fun to make up my story as I play. Some skeletons have their own names in "my" Dark Souls world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT5L8j-brgI
watch this and tell me that dark souls 1 doesn't have a story
watching this video basically makes the story crystal clear for anyone
watch this and tell me that dark souls 1 doesn't have a story
watching this video basically makes the story crystal clear for anyone
you're missing quite a bit from the experience by not caring about the story. a lot of care went into it in dark souls 1 / demon's souls / bloodborne.
the leaked version of bloodborne basically had the story 100000% crystal clear, but they cut out a lot of that before the game came out
in the current version, the story becomes pretty clear on a NG+ run. In the beta version, it was clear on your very first run. So it's pretty doubtful you'll understand everything on your first playthrough, but you'll understand enough to get a lot of enjoyment from the game. as it stands, bloodborne is less vague than dark souls 1, but more vague than demon's souls.
Vague-o-meter:
Least Vague <> Most Fague
Demon's Souls > Bloodborne > Dark Souls 1 > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls 2
The story is basically that there's a curse that's turning people undead, you're freed from the asylum to go to Lordran to fulfill a prophecy to undo the curse. There you're told to ring two bells of awakening, and once you do that you're told to get the Lordvessel. Once you get that you need to fill the Lordvessel and to do that you have to get the souls of the bosses and this opens the door to the kiln of the first flame. There you kill Gwyn, light the first flame (unless you don't), and this presumably ends the undead curse.
The reason you don't remember is because the story of Dark Souls is barebones and basically a bunch of fetch quests. Generally when people talk about the story they usually mean the lore and backstory. Which is also barebones, but has quite a lot of freedom of interpretation that people enjoy discussing.
The reason you don't remember is because the story of Dark Souls is barebones and basically a bunch of fetch quests. Generally when people talk about the story they usually mean the lore and backstory. Which is also barebones, but has quite a lot of freedom of interpretation that people enjoy discussing.
Dark Souls' story is about Cameron and Brexit. He must light the fire to keep the curse away aka those filthy foreigners.
If you make a habit of reading the description of every time you pick up you can get a decent understanding of it. The trick is piecing the separate parts together to form the bigger picture.
If you make a habit of reading the description of every time you pick up you can get a decent understanding of it. The trick is piecing the separate parts together to form the bigger picture.
Yes, in broad strokes. Off the top of my head:
First there was a grey void filled with dragons and archtrees. Then fire gave way to light and dark. Gwyn and the Izalith Witch found the Great Souls. The Pygmy found the Dark Soul and laid low during the Age of Fire.
Gwyn and his lords went to war with the dragons, most of them were wiped out, Anor Londo was built and the Age of Fire was in full swing. Gwyn gave a soul to Seath, made him a Duke for his role in helping in the war. New Londo was built and four kings were put in charge, with each sharing a portion of another soul given by Gwyn. Multiple human cities began to pop up. Oolacile and New Londo were something like sister cities, or at least trade partners (their gates are right next to each other in the Valley of the Drakes). Eventually the fire began to fade. Izalith tried to re-create it through pyromancy, but it failed and gave birth to Chaos, from which demons were born. Anor Londo fought off the demons. With fire rapidly declining, Gwyn kindled the flame. This was the First Sin, an un-natural act that robbed humanity of its Age of Dark. Gwyn likely linked the fire to humanity, and by extension the Dark Soul. This eventually gave rise to the undead curse. Manus, who is likely the pygmy who found the Dark Soul, was dug up beneath Oolacile at the behest of Kaathe. The mages there fucked up, he became the beast we saw in DS1 and the abyss began spreading. Generations go by, the world falls into decline and decay, the gods have almost all left and DS1 takes place - chosen undead seeks to either link the flame or let Dark take over.
But the choice is moot.
Because of Gwyn's linking, the cycle is already set. If you link the fire, the cycle still continues. Fire will still fade. If you choose not to link the fire, another chosen undead will rise and will eventually do so instead. A multitude of kingdoms rise and fall on the strength of the Flame. Aldia and Vendrick realize this, Aldia through his research somehow becomes linked to the bonfires and Vendrick, unable to become the "true monarch" (ie, unable to make the choice whether or not to link the flame or let Dark rule) hollows. The four shards of Manus become living beings in their own right with their own agendas, each seeking monarchs to link the flame for their own ends.
Then DS3 happens and I haven't played it so I have no idea :P
First there was a grey void filled with dragons and archtrees. Then fire gave way to light and dark. Gwyn and the Izalith Witch found the Great Souls. The Pygmy found the Dark Soul and laid low during the Age of Fire.
Gwyn and his lords went to war with the dragons, most of them were wiped out, Anor Londo was built and the Age of Fire was in full swing. Gwyn gave a soul to Seath, made him a Duke for his role in helping in the war. New Londo was built and four kings were put in charge, with each sharing a portion of another soul given by Gwyn. Multiple human cities began to pop up. Oolacile and New Londo were something like sister cities, or at least trade partners (their gates are right next to each other in the Valley of the Drakes). Eventually the fire began to fade. Izalith tried to re-create it through pyromancy, but it failed and gave birth to Chaos, from which demons were born. Anor Londo fought off the demons. With fire rapidly declining, Gwyn kindled the flame. This was the First Sin, an un-natural act that robbed humanity of its Age of Dark. Gwyn likely linked the fire to humanity, and by extension the Dark Soul. This eventually gave rise to the undead curse. Manus, who is likely the pygmy who found the Dark Soul, was dug up beneath Oolacile at the behest of Kaathe. The mages there fucked up, he became the beast we saw in DS1 and the abyss began spreading. Generations go by, the world falls into decline and decay, the gods have almost all left and DS1 takes place - chosen undead seeks to either link the flame or let Dark take over.
But the choice is moot.
Because of Gwyn's linking, the cycle is already set. If you link the fire, the cycle still continues. Fire will still fade. If you choose not to link the fire, another chosen undead will rise and will eventually do so instead. A multitude of kingdoms rise and fall on the strength of the Flame. Aldia and Vendrick realize this, Aldia through his research somehow becomes linked to the bonfires and Vendrick, unable to become the "true monarch" (ie, unable to make the choice whether or not to link the flame or let Dark rule) hollows. The four shards of Manus become living beings in their own right with their own agendas, each seeking monarchs to link the flame for their own ends.
Then DS3 happens and I haven't played it so I have no idea :P
I always wondered how the player character got to know all the stuff about the items they're carrying, whatever they are, and the answer I arrived at is that the item descriptions very loosely represent the salient rumours that would come up in conversations about these items, if the player character ever discussed them with the characters they meet.
I've no clue if that's canon though :P
Aye, I certainly can. I like solving obscure mysteries, so I consider it a treat to have a new Souls-like mythology to break down.
I will say I needed a little more help for Bloodborne in understanding the Great Ones and their connection to the Healing Church. As well as how the Fishing Hamlet was connected to Byrgenwerth and the Old Hunters and what was Lady Maria's role in that tragic episode.
Meanwhile, Dark Souls 3 was rife with face-value explanations for character motivations in the weapon descriptions and boss souls. Probably helped a great deal that I could read the individual boss weapons/spells/rings without having to actually forge them. The Ariandel and Ringed City DLCs were similarly straightforward in that regard.
I will say I needed a little more help for Bloodborne in understanding the Great Ones and their connection to the Healing Church. As well as how the Fishing Hamlet was connected to Byrgenwerth and the Old Hunters and what was Lady Maria's role in that tragic episode.
Meanwhile, Dark Souls 3 was rife with face-value explanations for character motivations in the weapon descriptions and boss souls. Probably helped a great deal that I could read the individual boss weapons/spells/rings without having to actually forge them. The Ariandel and Ringed City DLCs were similarly straightforward in that regard.
That's why I vastly prefer Bloodborne over the other Souls games. The gameplay is sublime of course, but the fact that you can actually understand what the heck is going on (even if there still is the deep lore stuff in the items and shit) is a big plus.
Not really. I mean vaguely in really broad strokes but yeah...
I dont think Miyazaki does story telling as well as his role model - Fumito Ueda
I mean you can clearly see the influence of Ueda in his games but Ueda always manages to tell a coherent story but enriching it with some of the most brilliant world building I have seen in games. It captures the same mystery and world building of the souls games without sacrificing coherence. I really hope Miyazaki gets inspired by TLG's story telling technique and delivers a Souls game of that ilk.
I dont think Miyazaki does story telling as well as his role model - Fumito Ueda
I mean you can clearly see the influence of Ueda in his games but Ueda always manages to tell a coherent story but enriching it with some of the most brilliant world building I have seen in games. It captures the same mystery and world building of the souls games without sacrificing coherence. I really hope Miyazaki gets inspired by TLG's story telling technique and delivers a Souls game of that ilk.
I understand the story in the first game because I made a conscious effort of reading item descriptions and looking up the bits I didn't grasp, it's pretty much how it's intended to work and I think that's fine.
Now 2 and 3 I dunno. I understand the gist of 3's story, more or less, 2 I completely forgot about by now.
My favorite is Bloodborne's, but Demon's is fairly straightforward too and DaS1 is cool once you grasp it.
Now 2 and 3 I dunno. I understand the gist of 3's story, more or less, 2 I completely forgot about by now.
My favorite is Bloodborne's, but Demon's is fairly straightforward too and DaS1 is cool once you grasp it.
They're all called Skeleton in mine and some people cheer for them in places, it's cute.
This is me with most games.
Having a blast with Wolfenstein 2 at the moment and my friend wanted to discuss the story with me. I was like, what story? I'm just enjoying shooting shit. I can't give a shit about most videogame stories, aside from RPGs or David Cage games where it's basically the game.
I have watched a few videos explaining the story, but I could never fully grasp it. It is a fascinating story, though.
I mean I played Dark Souls for about 9 hours and I really had no idea what the hell I was doing it, why I was doing it, or what was even going on.
It left me with very little interest in the setting and I was overall uninvested.
I think it was part of the reason I dropped the game.
If this is your preferred method of story telling more power to you, but I can't stand it.
It's why I hate when anyone says more stories should be told this way.
If the mean the general stuff actually given in the games and worked out with reasonable extrapolations (which also includes several things intentionally open to interpretation) then sure.
If you mean unhinged wikiwank "lore" stuff like "this scratch on the wall next to an item obviously means that this random character is an important character's twice-removed stepbrother and that's important somehow" then no but lol.
If you mean unhinged wikiwank "lore" stuff like "this scratch on the wall next to an item obviously means that this random character is an important character's twice-removed stepbrother and that's important somehow" then no but lol.
Yes. I think the wider story of Dark Souls 1 is actually rather lovely, since it's about how people react to the inevitable march of time: Some accept it, some embrace it, and some try to defy it for just a few more seconds of comfort. There is no real "villain" beyond the universal force of entropy. There are morally repugnant characters like Seath, but they ultimately are just as much prisoners of time as anyone else.
The next two games muddy it up, but I still find Dark Souls 1 presents a compelling setting and dilemma.
The next two games muddy it up, but I still find Dark Souls 1 presents a compelling setting and dilemma.
I mean if that's what you like fine. Glad you do. I'm just saying it didn't invest me at all and it's why I was really sick of the "make everything like Dark Souls" fad that was so big a few years ago.
You know, I re-read your post and I had it all wrong lol, I thought you had said it was straight up bad but you were just stating your preferences. Forget I said anything, oops.
Why does every one equate backstory/lore with the story of the game.
The intro cutscene and the things that happen in the game are the story. And it tells them just fine: by letting them happen.
Why does everyone think that taking away from the game and insisting on telling teh story outside the game via cutscenes the whole way through is any better than small bits of text? Both of those are external to the game.0
How on earth did you not know what was going on. Did you skip the intro cutscene?
What is so hard about the game itself telling the story.
The story of each of the games is pretty simple just by watching the opening cinematic and listening to what the NPCs tell you.
- The world is fucked, and a fire that the gods started is about to go out.
- You are the chosen/cursed one who can keep the fire from going out.
- Someone at some point tells you to link your soul to the fire/don't link your soul to the fire.
- You kill things to become more powerful.
- You link the fire/don't link the fire.
- The end.
All of the lore is just extra info about the gods that started the fire, their extended families, their allies and enemies, the monsters you're killing, etc. That stuff is backstory and just a bonus for people who want to know how the world got fucked. If you're the sort of person who needs a "why" for everything, then you might not enjoy the story, because a lot of it is probably just the way it is because it looks cool.
- The world is fucked, and a fire that the gods started is about to go out.
- You are the chosen/cursed one who can keep the fire from going out.
- Someone at some point tells you to link your soul to the fire/don't link your soul to the fire.
- You kill things to become more powerful.
- You link the fire/don't link the fire.
- The end.
All of the lore is just extra info about the gods that started the fire, their extended families, their allies and enemies, the monsters you're killing, etc. That stuff is backstory and just a bonus for people who want to know how the world got fucked. If you're the sort of person who needs a "why" for everything, then you might not enjoy the story, because a lot of it is probably just the way it is because it looks cool.
Also, the fact that almost 20% of the story in dark souls 1 is based on whether or not you encounter Darkstalker Keethe by sequence breaking is pretty bad.
Not a lot of people even know you can actually talk to that monster, let alone enter a covenent with him. And he offers maybe 20% of the story in the game. Without him, you won't even know what a DARK SOUL is.
Not a lot of people even know you can actually talk to that monster, let alone enter a covenent with him. And he offers maybe 20% of the story in the game. Without him, you won't even know what a DARK SOUL is.
To be specific, I bought the games for my son and I have dicked around with them by taking the controller and feeling it out, with him laughing at me at how incompetent I was. But just the slower movement and precise, deliberate combat is not my cup of tea and also I know I don't have the patience to really absorb the story through item descriptions, the world and outside resources to correctly grasp it all while giving it the attention it deserves in gameplay.
That's the real reason why I have no desire to actually play the game, but the world and lore is quite interesting and watching/listening to a lore based playthrough while I relax in bed or fold laundry works better for me.
I can also understand and respect those like yourself, that don't enjoy the flashier, combo based gameplay of things like Bayo or MGR. That style isn't for everyone.
These. This is what Dark Souls is about. Great posts.
2 is a bit more...out there and changes things that 3 has to take into consideration while also trying to end a series. In the end it makes 3 feel like a rehash of DS1 and not really answer any of the big questions we had from DS1 when I doubt Miyazaki really ever had any intention to.
The story of Dark Souls is DS1 op, you needn't worry about 2 and only a little of 3(to understand how it ends).
I also think a good thing to do is separate story from lore/backstory. The actual story of the game is what we are doing in it. The things that happen while we are playing. Character backstories, items fleshing out the world, and things that NPCs tell us about the world and how it came to be are lore. Most can grasp the overarching story, but the intricate lore is something else entirely.
Well, you got mostly everything. Dark Souls 3 mostly just ignores DS2 and the whole "true monarch" and "crown" stuff.
What a lovely post. I've always understood the story, but never laid it out in those terms. I really can appreciate that. Consequently, I think Dark Souls 3 managed to bring about a satisfying ending for the saga through The Ringed City DLC, where time really does come to an end.
Sure I does. Even the first time around I felt I understood the gist of it of the main plot. It was most of the details I had not noticed. DS2 I didn't really bother to delve much into the lore because I found the world boring, but I went out of my way in trying to understand the role of Vendrick, Nashandra, and Aldia at least. DS3 adds to really good stuff, between the nostalgia and the new revelations to be found.
BB's story and lore is also very interesting as well, although most are unlikely to understand any of what it means. I struggled with it myself the first time around, but I understood the basic idea that the Hunter's ultimate role was not to hunt beasts, but Great Ones. The hows and whys were what was lost on me. But once you dive in to better understand it, it's pretty amazing stuff.
There is some new found information in DS3 on this matter, in particular with the Ringed City DLC, that has most likely negated this theory on Manus.
DS3 and DLC spoilers:
DS3 for the most part adds further context to how the cycles were dealt with through the sacrifice of great lords (that would become lords of cinder) and how to ultimately end that cycle, with some other smaller details that relate to the first game. The DLC possesses its own story involving the painted worlds and their own cycles they face...
DLC spoilers:
But yeah, DS3 has some pretty great stuff with not only what it further adds to what is already known, but also the world building of its own world, with the likes of the story of Pontiff Sulyvahn. Still, one would probably not understand a lick of DS3 without the proper context of DS1. Its essentially the direct sequel to DS1 that DS2 never was.
BB's story and lore is also very interesting as well, although most are unlikely to understand any of what it means. I struggled with it myself the first time around, but I understood the basic idea that the Hunter's ultimate role was not to hunt beasts, but Great Ones. The hows and whys were what was lost on me. But once you dive in to better understand it, it's pretty amazing stuff.
There is some new found information in DS3 on this matter, in particular with the Ringed City DLC, that has most likely negated this theory on Manus.
DS3 and DLC spoilers:
It turns out the pygmies actually fought the alongside the rest of the great lords against the dragons. Many pygmy knights in the Ringed City adorn attire made of dragon, most likely the trophies they still possess. Despite their role however, Gwyn rewarded their efforts with their own Ringed City, which more so played a role as a prison to detain the pygmies to be forgotten forever in Gwyn's age of fire. But it is within this Ringed City that the Dark Soul remains, and plays a key part in the story of the DLC.
DS3 for the most part adds further context to how the cycles were dealt with through the sacrifice of great lords (that would become lords of cinder) and how to ultimately end that cycle, with some other smaller details that relate to the first game. The DLC possesses its own story involving the painted worlds and their own cycles they face...
DLC spoilers:
...which eventually play into the pygmies and the Dark Souls of Man.
But yeah, DS3 has some pretty great stuff with not only what it further adds to what is already known, but also the world building of its own world, with the likes of the story of Pontiff Sulyvahn. Still, one would probably not understand a lick of DS3 without the proper context of DS1. Its essentially the direct sequel to DS1 that DS2 never was.
Last edited:
Dude gets let out of prison. His savior is killed and he takes up the mantle in the savior's quest which is to join a bonfire that keeps the world alive a little bit longer. In the end you fight and kill the old king that joined the bonfire and you chose to keep it burning or let it fade out.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Awesome :) I'm going to be starting DS3 later this week, I've been looking forward to it for a while!
I'm really glad people liked it because I completely screwed the part explaining the sci fi bit.
Which that really frustrates me because I absolutely love how it like.
Okay.
So one reason I love medieval fantasy is because it goes, "hey that stuff we believed a long time ago? Well it's real." That is just my favorite thing ever. I also just love really symbolic stuff too and I don't know why.
So then when a medieval fantasy game comes along and goes hard core into that, with some original monsters and art design but still being faithful to the aesthetic and tone, and then has gameplay that really works hand in hand with the lore, story, tone, and other gameplay elements to themselves help tell the story, and then when you take all of that and you use it to say, okay okay, so, let's do that with science and time and stuff now.
Like that is so cool. I have never seen such a cool mix of actual science and symbolic fantasy. It's such a successful, natural mix that people completely miss it. Like they see Solaire go "hey time and stuff is messin up now that the fire's goin out" and most never make the connection "OH, THAT'S BECAUSE LIGHT AND TIME ARE IN FACT INTERTWINED. LIKE IN REAL LIFE." and then you inject that actual science into the fantasy while still preserving the magical and symbolic elements. Like. Ahhhhhh.
The coolest revelation I ever had about video games was when I realized that Dark Souls is a sci-fi game.
It's one of the only things I have ever experience that I find so cool I just don't know how to explain how cool it is. It's a bizzare feeling.
I just completely nerd out with nothing but joy whenever I talk about this.
The story should really have an easy mode.
Oh and no not really. Bloodborne made more sense at least.
Oh and no not really. Bloodborne made more sense at least.
The real story is the one we as players face to progress through the darkness.
Denial:
It's not my skill level , the game is just badly structured.
Anger:
Sneaky bastard, **** this game is cheating now.
Bargaining:
Ok one more frigging go, almost finished a level that time.
Depression:
I can't do it, it's beaten me totally, I'll never finish. **** this shit.
Acceptance:
Just free you mind and chill, so much easier....plus wish I'd found this big ass, Uchigatana ages ago.
That was my story at least.
Denial:
It's not my skill level , the game is just badly structured.
Anger:
Sneaky bastard, **** this game is cheating now.
Bargaining:
Ok one more frigging go, almost finished a level that time.
Depression:
I can't do it, it's beaten me totally, I'll never finish. **** this shit.
Acceptance:
Just free you mind and chill, so much easier....plus wish I'd found this big ass, Uchigatana ages ago.
That was my story at least.
Last edited:
