|
Captain Oblivious posted:The Dark Lord ending doesn't really say a whole lot of anything, and is pretty open ended to say the least so...nah dawg. ~I disagree~. No it's pretty clear what's happening. You don't kindle the flame and walk out. That's it. quote:Also I'm loathe to take anything Kaathe says ever as objective fact. Taking anything he says purely by itself is not smart, but when his statements are supported elsewhere by characters that have nothing to do with him, it'd be silly to dismiss them. Kaathe says progressing to an age of darkness is natural; The Dull Ember description supports at this, by questioning if its natural state is one of being barely lit.
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
So would somebody mind explaining what the difference is between an Age of Light and an Age of Dark? Is it supposed to be literal or figurative? Does the age of light literally mean there is light in the world that exists, or does it mean that it's possible to exist without being hollow? Likewise, can you be not-hollow and exist in an age of dark?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:So would somebody mind explaining what the difference is between an Age of Light and an Age of Dark? Is it supposed to be literal or figurative? Does the age of light literally mean there is light in the world that exists, or does it mean that it's possible to exist without being hollow? Likewise, can you be not-hollow and exist in an age of dark? An age of fire/light is just normal medieval fantasy life, more or less. An age of darkness is an age where the undead curse exists and flourishes.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:No it's pretty clear what's happening. You don't kindle the flame and walk out. That's it. But there's also this thing called the abyss which we don't completely understand
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:So would somebody mind explaining what the difference is between an Age of Light and an Age of Dark? Is it supposed to be literal or figurative? Does the age of light literally mean there is light in the world that exists, or does it mean that it's possible to exist without being hollow? Likewise, can you be not-hollow and exist in an age of dark? Oh, yeah. Only humans can hollow, and not all of them do. There's still plenty of talk about normal people outside of the areas we're in.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Well no, nobody's sure what happens during the Age of Dark. Kaathe implies the curse ends. DS2 advances the idea is that the Age of Dark is perfect stagnation, like the Undead Crypt.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:No it's pretty clear what's happening. You don't kindle the flame and walk out. That's it. Right, and what happens after that? That's the question. My stance is simple: The First Flame has never been fully extinguished, and that extinguishing is what the Age of Dark represents. By killing Gwyn and casting aside the Chosen Undead destiny, the First Flame finally runs out the clock and burns out in the Age of Dark ending and what happens after is <we don't know because Link the Fire is canonical>. The leadup to DS2 is just another Age of Fire. Vendrick may not have chosen to link the fire but that doesn't mean it's the Age of Dark, because the Flame was not nearly so degraded in the time of Vendrick as in the time of DS2.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Is there a way to get to the area where the single witch is sniping you above the gravestones in the undead crypt?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Relin posted:Is there a way to get to the area where the single witch is sniping you above the gravestones in the undead crypt? There's a ladder behind some gravestones right next to the door in the bonfire room.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
I'm not sure why everyone thinks that DS1 segues perfectly into DS2. They have two different writers, no? That's why DS2 is heavy on the vaguely Buddhist cyclical themes and DS1 isn't really.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:I'm not sure why everyone thinks that DS1 segues perfectly into DS2. Presumably some effort was made to make sure the big cosmic mechanisms are all basically consistent, even if the game has different things to say and says 'em differently.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Dark Souls 1 was on the first (second?) cycle so it wouldn't make sense to be. There's definitely a tonal shift from one game to the next though.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Right, and what happens after that? That's the question. My stance is simple: The First Flame has never been fully extinguished, and that extinguishing is what the Age of Dark represents. By killing Gwyn and casting aside the Chosen Undead destiny, the First Flame finally runs out the clock and burns out in the Age of Dark ending and what happens after is <we don't know because Link the Fire is canonical>. Right, the flame has never been extinguished because it literally cannot be extinguished. Straid of Olpahis posted:Anything that has a beginning also has an end. No flame, however brilliant, does not one day splutter and fade. No matter what there will always be some small embers allowing the flame to re-ignite. As shown in both the endings of Dks and the ending of this game, it requires specific action to re-ignite the flame (you burning yourself, the EH mentioning in the narration it's up to you if you want to rekindle the flame and let souls flourish anew). As Kaath's dialogue, the Dark Lord ending, and the Dull Ember description suggest, an age of darkness is that time when the flames have burned down to embers. Dks2 takes place in an age of darkness; that's why all the firekeepers aren't doing their jobs anymore. There is nothing that says the link the fire ending is canonical. To say either ending is canonical is also completely missing the point of this game. The game tells you over and over that it does not matter. Because everything is part of a continuously repeating cycle that will happen over and over again, and there is no way to break the cycle. Space Hamlet posted:Presumably some effort was made to make sure the big cosmic mechanisms are all basically consistent, even if the game has different things to say and says 'em differently. There's also that Dks is the start of the cycle. There's nothing about repetition because this is the first time the cycle has reached the end/beginning.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
There isn't a single fight in Dark Souls 1 or 2 that has the same impact as Storm King did for me, which is a shame. The fight is gimmicky for sure but its a really good one.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Straid's quote and the dull ember seem to refer to the possiblity of renewing the age of fire from a faded flame, which we see happen in both games. I don't see that it proves that the flame absolutely can't be extinguished under any circumstance. I refer you again to the ending monologue, which seems to offer "renouncing" the cycle as a possibility.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:An age of fire/light is just normal medieval fantasy life, more or less. An age of darkness is an age where the undead curse exists and flourishes. From all the talk in DS1 about the age of dark being basically the age of man, I think the first flame finally dying out would be the end of the lord souls power. Only the dark souls would be left(humanity). The first game made it sound like the pygmy created humanity to overpower the lord souls like ants devouring a larger animal. I don't really think of it so much as an actual curse, it's just the dark soul's influence. If the fist flame is extinguished, the curse would no longer be needed, and it would be life as we know it. I think it's like the age of fire is the age of magic, and the age of dark would be settling into reality. This is why humans have the choice to let it die, and the lord soul team will do anything they can to keep it going. edit: oh wait none of that makes sense because Manus is a thing, haha! Nevermind! Leadthumb fucked around with this message at 22:49 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:I'm not sure why everyone thinks that DS1 segues perfectly into DS2. I also lean this way heavily, personally. I think a lot of things, like the utter vapidity of anything pertaining to the Dark in DS2, can be chalked up to new writers who had little understanding of certain things in DS1 and opted to go a different direction thematically.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Straid's quote and the dull ember seem to refer to the possiblity of renewing the age of fire from a faded flame, which we see happen in both games. I don't see that it proves that the flame absolutely can't be extinguished under any circumstance. I refer you again to the ending monologue, which seems to offer "renouncing" the cycle as a possibility. You're not renouncing the cycle. You're choosing to either rekindle the flame or let it alone. Both choices are part of the cycle. Being able to choose another option just does not fit with the games theme of the cycle being unbreakable. Leadthumb posted:From all the talk in DS1 about the age of dark being basically the age of man, I think the first flame finally dying out would be the end of the lord souls power. Only the dark souls would be left(humanity). The first game made it sound like the pygmy created humanity to overpower the lord souls like ants devouring a larger animal. I don't really think of it so much as an actual curse, it's just the dark soul's influence. If the fist flame is extinguished, the curse would no longer be needed, and it would be life as we know it. I think it's like the age of fire is the age of magic, and the age of dark would be settling into reality. This is why humans have the choice to let it die, and the lord soul team will do anything they can to keep it going. Going purely by dks, sure. But dks2 says the opposite; many many characters talk about how the curse is a part of life itself, from Salden to the Ancient Dragon. Captain Oblivious posted:I also lean this way heavily, personally. I think a lot of things, like the utter vapidity of anything pertaining to the Dark in DS2, can be chalked up to new writers who had little understanding of certain things in DS1 and opted to go a different direction thematically. Well duh. Different writers are going to have different takes on the material. I also wouldn't say they had "little understanding." They doubtlessly know more than we do, having access to internal documents and the like. The writers chose to take the story in a different direction. That's not to say it's completely out of the blue and Dks being the start of the cycle works perfectly well
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Leadthumb posted:
It would have been nice if DS2 explained a bit more about what it means for humanity to go wild.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
I finally finished off the achievements blowing through NG++ (the levels are really short if you know where to go and aren't looking for every secret/item). Had to scrap my no bonfire run when I realized a flaw in my cunning plan, that the shrine of winter skip is only one-way. Nevertheless, I had been using Nvidia Inspector to force the game into 30 Hz, and I noticed when switching it back to 60Hz vsync that the new Nvidia patch seems to have updated compatibility. It now has a specific anti-aliasing setting for DS2, and a bunch of undefined settings in Japanese I don't recall seeing before. On a different topic, when I was trying to get CSS from the spider's NG+ bonus soul*, I noticed that my lightning spears were doing 90-degree turns pretty often, right next to the target face I was locked onto, while the spider was turning and jumping around. I think that would suggest it has to do more with being locked on than a result of latency. Oh, one last thing: I was looking up info on Demons' Souls boss Astraea because I couldn't remember why she was supposedly evil, and somehow I stumbled on the Greek concept of the Ages of Man. It's really an uncanny resemblance, I didn't realize the Greek myth parallels extend beyond just lightning spears.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:You're not renouncing the cycle. You're choosing to either rekindle the flame or let it alone. Both choices are part of the cycle. Being able to choose another option just does not fit with the games theme of the cycle being unbreakable. Then why does the Emerald Herald literally describe the cycle and then say "It's your choice to embrace or renounce this?" I guess it could just be bad English, but that seems like a wider leap than assuming that what she's saying is true. I think the game has a theme of an unbroken cycle, sure - because of the succession of leaders like Vendrick and Gwyn who do everything they can to hold onto their respective ages. But I don't see any real evidence that the flame could never be extinguished ever, but I do see some evidence that there are characters who want that to happen, and are trying to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Then why does the Emerald Herald literally describe the cycle and then say "It's your choice to embrace or renounce this?" I guess it could just be bad English, but that seems like a wider leap than assuming that what she's saying is true. The Herald repeatedly references breaking the shackles of fate, as well. She's never clear on what that entails however.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Then why does the Emerald Herald literally describe the cycle and then say "It's your choice to embrace or renounce this?" I guess it could just be bad English, but that seems like a wider leap than assuming that what she's saying is true. I took that to mean that it is your choice to shoulder the burden of the curse as the monarch. There is a difference with Vendrick and Gwynn; Vendrick chose not to light the flame to prolong his age, but instead, he tried everything he could to break the cycle by finding a cure for the curse. Him and his brother's experiments with dragons -- the only thing that we've seen thus far outside of the cycle of life and death -- is evidence of this. And we see their failure as well. I think the Dull Ember's description is as much "evidence" as we're going to get. Both Light and Dark are temporary states, with the natural, "ordinary" state being somewhere in between. The cycle refers to both light and dark ages, not just ages of light.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Then why does the Emerald Herald literally describe the cycle and then say "It's your choice to embrace or renounce this?" I guess it could just be bad English, but that seems like a wider leap than assuming that what she's saying is true. She's talking about NG+ basically. She's not saying "you can choose to link the fire, or you can choose not to". You can make such a choice in the game, but only by going to the Throne in the first place. In the ending cutscene she's describing the linking of the fire as a fait accompli - which it obviously is, since you have just brought fire (in the form of your four Great Souls) to the kiln (Throne). If you don't do that the fire will persist in its unlinked state. But since you've done this, the world will be repopulated with bosses and you can play the game again (embrace) or not (renounce).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Fashion souls i need a helm
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Iretep posted:Anyone have a character at the 900k-1.2 mil SM range that wants to help me move the ruin set to a 600k SM character? A bit late, but if you haven't found someone to help I got a guy in the right range. Steam: TuxedoTed.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
I suppose that's a good reading, yeah. The reason I'm resistant to it is because it seems to kind of throw away Dark Souls 1's themes of entropy and reduces the stakes of the conflict that game presented. But, different games and writers etc
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Whix posted:Fashion souls i need a helm Drakekeeper? Royal Swordsman? Ironclad?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
I'd go with King's Crown.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
http://www.nexusmods.com/darksouls2/mods/184/ Uploaded my Red mod to the nexus for easier downloading. Here it is as it looks now: 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
All of you arguing about the story of DS2 are completely missing it. It's actually very simple. It's the story all about how your life gets flipped, and turned upside down, and you eventually become the monarch of a place called Drangleic.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:I suppose that's a good reading, yeah. The reason I'm resistant to it is because it seems to kind of throw away Dark Souls 1's themes of entropy and reduces the stakes of the conflict that game presented. But, different games and writers etc Personally, I find that though it might reduce the stakes as the choice is then ultimately irrelevant, it does make the sacrifice all the more poignant. It turns the central theme from one of sacrifice, in the first game, to one of the futility of (un)life. Despite the heroic deeds and sacrifices of a whole age's heroes, it is all futile in the end and all will come to naught. There is no escaping fate. To me, that theme makes DkS2 a lot more emotionally powerful than the first.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
I guess I've just never been too find of nihilism as a theme! Dark Souls 1 was kind of sisyphean in the Camus sense, and that means something. "It all turns to ash in the end" is just, well gently caress, whatever then
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:I guess I've just never been too find of nihilism as a theme! Dark Souls 1 was kind of sisyphean in the Camus sense, and that means something. "It all turns to ash in the end" is just, well gently caress, whatever then Also, what's a good weapon to dick around with that isn't widely used?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:I guess I've just never been too find of nihilism as a theme! Dark Souls 1 was kind of sisyphean in the Camus sense, and that means something. "It all turns to ash in the end" is just, well gently caress, whatever then I'm inclined to agree with you on this, so you're not alone there. At this point that kind of theme is so played out my only reaction to it is "Oh, this again?"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
For reasons I can't quite recall, I sort of want to do the pig run for the mattock. Is it actually an okay weapon though?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Gestalt Intellect posted:For reasons I can't quite recall, I sort of want to do the pig run for the mattock. Is it actually an okay weapon though?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
neetengie posted:Also, what's a good weapon to dick around with that isn't widely used? Powerstanced pickaxes. You know you want to.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
I'd always thought Age of Light/Fire meant that the world was ran by these 'gods' (Gwyn, Nito, Witch of Izalith, etc) and the Age of Dark was simply the age of mankind. The undead curse is only in effect when someone tries to hold onto an age and therefore distorts the flow of time.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
My perspective is that what the player character does during these games is always worth it because they probably make life at least a bit better for all the people who survive in the current time period. Yeah it may all be temporary but at least all the people hanging around Majula will be able to go back to their lives and most everyone alive will die naturally before things start going bad again. Probably. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:55
|
|
