I'm not convinced the "first of the scholars" is Aldia. If "first" is an honorary title, it would have to be while he was still respected, and stuff. For how long were Lothric and Drangleic concurrent? Aldia was still fine at the founding of Drangleic and a while into it, but not so much at the end.
"First" being temporal rather than a rank would make Aldia seem too young.
Seems the range and straight trajectory are the reasons to use it. Stealth and binoculars.
I'm not convinced the "first of the scholars" is Aldia. If "first" is an honorary title, it would have to be while he was still respected, and stuff. For how long were Lothric and Drangleic concurrent? Aldia was still fine at the founding of Drangleic and a while into it, but not so much at the end.
"First" being temporal rather than a rank would make Aldia seem too young.
Seems the range and straight trajectory are the reasons to use it. Stealth and binoculars.
I stopped getting summoned much about when I reached Irithyll. Before that, I got plenty, but not enough for thirty proofs. Maybe I outleveled the Way of Blue too much .
From went through the effort of creating that power level down scaling system so that your late game character can play with a friend's new character, but they didn't think to utilize the same system for matching fun police with wobbies.
*sad trombone *
General_Armchair on
3DS Friend Code:
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
+3
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
New patch and new driver released on Tuesday fixed my issues, hooray! I still get weird framerate drops every 20 seconds in Windowed mode so I guess just don't run Dark Souls in Windowed mode is what I'm saying.
Of bizarrely fortuitous timing, I was home sick Tuesday and yesterday as well, so I got about 12 hours of souling in. Finished up Catacombs just before I went to bed last night, I'm so glad this game started working because I'm enjoying the heck out of it.
Not that it really has a big effect on the game's story or anything, but I think it's pretty slam dunk that the "first of the scholars" they refer to was meant to be Aldia. The fact that Lothric was led to believe, by a mentor they refer to as the first of the scholars that linking the flame was pointless and doing so would still leave you accursed is kind of open and shut as far as DS lore goes.
There's no reason to play on the scholar of the first sin wording with yet another behind the scenes character who doesn't think somebody should link the flame, etc.
It's a nod and a wink to Aldia more or less because again, it's not that important to DS3's story. But I don't see any real argument against it.
Not that it really has a big effect on the game's story or anything, but I think it's pretty slam dunk that the "first of the scholars" they refer to was meant to be Aldia. The fact that Lothric was led to believe, by a mentor they refer to as the first of the scholars that linking the flame was pointless and doing so would still leave you accursed is kind of open and shut as far as DS lore goes.
There's no reason to play on the scholar of the first sin wording with yet another behind the scenes character who doesn't think somebody should link the flame, etc.
It's a nod and a wink to Aldia more or less because again, it's not that important to DS3's story. But I don't see any real argument against it.
I guess. But was Aldia ever something like "the bestest scholar ever", or somebody who founded schools, or something that fits the title? I don't like the way they decided to play on the wording. It's rhyme-tier wordplay.
It's a crying shame Aldia doesn't make ANY sort of appearance whatsoever in Dark Souls 3. It really is the core point showing that Dark Souls 2 is treated more or less as non-canon. If not, did Aldia just fuck off and decide he was too tired of this shit or something?
Not that it really has a big effect on the game's story or anything, but I think it's pretty slam dunk that the "first of the scholars" they refer to was meant to be Aldia. The fact that Lothric was led to believe, by a mentor they refer to as the first of the scholars that linking the flame was pointless and doing so would still leave you accursed is kind of open and shut as far as DS lore goes.
There's no reason to play on the scholar of the first sin wording with yet another behind the scenes character who doesn't think somebody should link the flame, etc.
It's a nod and a wink to Aldia more or less because again, it's not that important to DS3's story. But I don't see any real argument against it.
I guess. But was Aldia ever something like "the bestest scholar ever", or somebody who founded schools, or something that fits the title? I don't like the way they decided to play on the wording. It's rhyme-tier wordplay.
Aldia was the foremost experimenter guy in DS2. More importantly, it's just about the fact that he's called the scholar of the first sin in DS2. To me, it's a clear case of one of those things where over the course of time, the title of "scholar of the first sin" becomes "first of the scholars," etc. Plus this first of the scholars is the one who doubts the linking of the fire and mentors prince Lothric about that. There's only one character in DS lore that's ever really doubted linking the fire and it was Aldia.
Also, the scholars in Lothric, who presumably the "first of the scholars" was the founder ended up locking themselves in the archives and doing freaky deaky experiments relating to dragons. Sound familiar?
I've been trying really hard not to think about DS3's story, but you guys make that quite difficult. At this point, it's clear to me that there was never any intention of answering any of the questions they raised in DS1 or 2, and wasted a great opportunity to provide the players both some context for the journeys we have undertaken, understanding of the consequences of those journeys, and some form of "resolution" to the story of cycles and struggle.
But they didn't. They just made a bunch of nostalgiaporn and easter eggs. Maybe we'll get the good endings and lore in the DLC.
I've been trying really hard not to think about DS3's story, but you guys make that quite difficult. At this point, it's clear to me that there was never any intention of answering any of the questions they raised in DS1 or 2, and wasted a great opportunity to provide the players both some context for the journeys we have undertaken, understanding of the consequences of those journeys, and some form of "resolution" to the story of cycles and struggle.
But they didn't. They just made a bunch of nostalgiaporn and easter eggs. Maybe we'll get the good endings and lore in the DLC.
Yeah, I love DS3 as a self contained game. Love all of it. Still replaying it and will be for a while. It's so much fun.
But in the context of being the third in a trilogy, it doesn't really do anything interesting with the story or anything the other games haven't done already.
I've been trying really hard not to think about DS3's story, but you guys make that quite difficult. At this point, it's clear to me that there was never any intention of answering any of the questions they raised in DS1 or 2, and wasted a great opportunity to provide the players both some context for the journeys we have undertaken, understanding of the consequences of those journeys, and some form of "resolution" to the story of cycles and struggle.
But they didn't. They just made a bunch of nostalgiaporn and easter eggs. Maybe we'll get the good endings and lore in the DLC.
It could also be a statement that ultimately everything in this world is meaningless and nothing will ever stop or change the cycle of Fire and Dark. Basically Sisyphus: Game Edition.
I can't imagine anybody really thought DS3 was going to have an explicit open and shut ending for this world. It's just not what this series does. It introduced a ton of new bosses and areas and enemies and NPCs that I dig, and that to me was always more important than "closing the book" on Dark Souls.
I think you guys just made me realize a big reason why I dislike the story of Dark Souls 3: They've stated that this is absolutely the conclusion to the Dark Souls saga.
But why? There is absolutely zero reason why it would be, from a story perspective. The endings are almost word for word the exact same ones we've had for two games now, and those did just fine with sequels.
Not that it really has a big effect on the game's story or anything, but I think it's pretty slam dunk that the "first of the scholars" they refer to was meant to be Aldia. The fact that Lothric was led to believe, by a mentor they refer to as the first of the scholars that linking the flame was pointless and doing so would still leave you accursed is kind of open and shut as far as DS lore goes.
There's no reason to play on the scholar of the first sin wording with yet another behind the scenes character who doesn't think somebody should link the flame, etc.
It's a nod and a wink to Aldia more or less because again, it's not that important to DS3's story. But I don't see any real argument against it.
I guess. But was Aldia ever something like "the bestest scholar ever", or somebody who founded schools, or something that fits the title? I don't like the way they decided to play on the wording. It's rhyme-tier wordplay.
Aldia was the foremost experimenter guy in DS2. More importantly, it's just about the fact that he's called the scholar of the first sin in DS2. To me, it's a clear case of one of those things where over the course of time, the title of "scholar of the first sin" becomes "first of the scholars," etc. Plus this first of the scholars is the one who doubts the linking of the fire and mentors prince Lothric about that. There's only one character in DS lore that's ever really doubted linking the fire and it was Aldia.
Also, the scholars in Lothric, who presumably the "first of the scholars" was the founder ended up locking themselves in the archives and doing freaky deaky experiments relating to dragons. Sound familiar?
Over the course of time is lame. It's not a fun title-nudge at all, just "schmolar of the schmirst schmame".
I've been trying really hard not to think about DS3's story, but you guys make that quite difficult. At this point, it's clear to me that there was never any intention of answering any of the questions they raised in DS1 or 2, and wasted a great opportunity to provide the players both some context for the journeys we have undertaken, understanding of the consequences of those journeys, and some form of "resolution" to the story of cycles and struggle.
But they didn't. They just made a bunch of nostalgiaporn and easter eggs. Maybe we'll get the good endings and lore in the DLC.
It's already been said in this thread but I'm pretty confident that we'll find a pendant on some random dude (probably that Carthus Crab) and then fight Artorias again because, "LOL Idunnowhynot?"
I've been trying really hard not to think about DS3's story, but you guys make that quite difficult. At this point, it's clear to me that there was never any intention of answering any of the questions they raised in DS1 or 2, and wasted a great opportunity to provide the players both some context for the journeys we have undertaken, understanding of the consequences of those journeys, and some form of "resolution" to the story of cycles and struggle.
But they didn't. They just made a bunch of nostalgiaporn and easter eggs. Maybe we'll get the good endings and lore in the DLC.
It could also be a statement that ultimately everything in this world is meaningless and nothing will ever stop or change the cycle of Fire and Dark. Basically Sisyphus: Game Edition.
I mean, yeah, that's the message every game has sent; but after three versions it's just fucking lazy.
I've been trying really hard not to think about DS3's story, but you guys make that quite difficult. At this point, it's clear to me that there was never any intention of answering any of the questions they raised in DS1 or 2, and wasted a great opportunity to provide the players both some context for the journeys we have undertaken, understanding of the consequences of those journeys, and some form of "resolution" to the story of cycles and struggle.
But they didn't. They just made a bunch of nostalgiaporn and easter eggs. Maybe we'll get the good endings and lore in the DLC.
It could also be a statement that ultimately everything in this world is meaningless and nothing will ever stop or change the cycle of Fire and Dark. Basically Sisyphus: Game Edition.
There are stronger ways to make this statement, and as presented, it ignores the Scholar ending of DS2. So long as that thread hangs, we don't actually know if nothing will ever stop or change the cycle.
Actually, I think that's my biggest problem. DS1 introduced the concept of the cycle, DS2 expanded on how endless and meaningless it was, SotFS opened a new and interesting idea, that there might be another way, to reject the cycle entirely, and then DS3... just does the cycle again.]
Maybe. I still need to see that last ending, but I haven't had any motivation to play this week. Work's been brutal, and I just started reading Homestuck for the first time, and clicking through web pages is less intensive than DS3...
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
It's sort of a bummer that the game that really sucked me into this series and made me love it is going to be the last one in the series, but at least I got on the ride before it completely ended!
I maintain that dark souls is basically just... mysterypasta
It's really good at evoking through atmosphere and allusion but that's all it does. And that's fine as long as you're not looking for an actual story
Miyazaki is on record saying as much
Though he's lying. At least in regards to DS1.
Hell, just look at the wealth of lore videos on DS1 vs DS2. The world and direct story of DS1 was actually pretty complete, if obfuscated and scattered. It took effort, and there are still a few gaps, but most everything was there: the creation myth, the rise of the Gods, the decline of the Age of Fire, the attempts to remain in power, and the consequences of the choices that the Chosen Undead can make. It's mysterious, but largely a complete thing.
DS2, on the other hand, got mysterious for mystery's sake. It said far less about it's world, relying less on the story being hard to find, and more on simply not giving players all the pieces. DS3 does this as well.
I think you can say both about either game as it's a matter of interpretation in both cases. Fact is, Miyazaki tries to evoke the same feeling he got reading Western fiction as a kid, understanding parts but ultimately having to interpret everything he didn't. This is something all soulsbourn games do extremely well, and is also why there is no (and will be no) ultimate conclusion confirming or denying anything. It's about your sense of exploration, both through the game and through the lore, and your interpretation of how it fits together. Kind of like impressionist art.
I maintain that dark souls is basically just... mysterypasta
It's really good at evoking through atmosphere and allusion but that's all it does. And that's fine as long as you're not looking for an actual story
Miyazaki is on record saying as much
Though he's lying. At least in regards to DS1.
Hell, just look at the wealth of lore videos on DS1 vs DS2. The world and direct story of DS1 was actually pretty complete, if obfuscated and scattered. It took effort, and there are still a few gaps, but most everything was there: the creation myth, the rise of the Gods, the decline of the Age of Fire, the attempts to remain in power, and the consequences of the choices that the Chosen Undead can make. It's mysterious, but largely a complete thing.
DS2, on the other hand, got mysterious for mystery's sake. It said far less about it's world, relying less on the story being hard to find, and more on simply not giving players all the pieces. DS3 does this as well.
In some cases though people just didn't care because DS2 wasn't DS1. You can really tell if you watch EpicNameBro's DS2 playthrough on Youtube... It's from right when the game came out and he just doesn't sound like he cares at all. But his "From the Dark" playthrough of DS1? He fucking gushes.
I'm not saying that's the case in every case. And I certainly don't want to start a whole DS1 vs DS2 thing. But I do think that a lot of people that started with DS1 and then moved onto DS2 just didn't give a shit. There's a ton of interesting lore in DS2 and (especially with the DLC) you can get just as much out of it as DS1.
Up to SL60 or so with my tank build in my first run. VGR's still sitting at 19, but I've raised my VIT to around 35 and my STR to 22-ish. With Havel's Ring and that other ring that boosts load, HP, and stamina, I'm now able to wear most of the exile set while hefting a nice shield (Shield of Want right now because holy god I need so many souls) and the flaming greatsword from the boss soul. The greatsword I'll swap around with a raw broadsword and the deep battle axe, depending on enemy resists and whatnot. I'm not wearing the exile mask right now as it would push me over, but also because I now have the high lord's crown and I don't ever wanna take it off and you can't make me!
Tank style is still working out. Poise is utterly nonexistent, but I'm not really missing it because I've never actually had high poise in a Souls game before anyway. I'm more concerned with reducing damage so I can take lots of hits, and that's definitely working out. Invader after invader has come at me, expecting a fatroller or something with poor damage, and they've found neither (I'm staying under 70%, and my offensive output is quite respectable). In fact thanks to my sturdy defenses I usually outdamage invaders that are two-handing katanas and other such things.
I haven't lost to an individual invader yet, though I did fall to a pair of covenant guardians after the Pontiff (wasn't aware that was a thing that could happen until it was too late). I probably could have taken them out, but I spent 5 minutes and most of my Estus running in circles at the entrance, trying and failing to summon help. Two invaders jumped in back to back with no problem, but four consecutive ally summons failed, and half the time there weren't even any signs on the ground at all. That's the way it goes. When I resigned myself to my fate and started fighting back, I got one of them down to a single hit before they finished me. Made me think I should have just focused on smart play from the beginning instead of panicking for help -- my tank can really wear down most appropriate SL invaders.
The trick is going to be getting 32+ STR for greatshields with super high stability. Running out of stamina is a consistent problem; I've invested some into END and probably should invest more, but I think I'd rather shoot for greatshields first. And that'll mean boosting my VIT even higher, because as it is I had to remove my hotswap crossbow just to carry this greatsword around and stick under 70%.
The bosses mostly seem pretty easy this time around, too, though to be fair I haven't tried many of them solo. I have run with just an NPC once or twice (mostly for gestures, following that super handy checklist that got posted earlier), and even that has worked out remarkably well compared to how such "help" tended to fare in DS2 (they usually just made it harder). I imagine the Pontiff is pretty rough solo in the second phase, but High Lord was a total wet fart once you know the trick, and the Old Demon King was easier than the demon that guards the entrance to the area.
I think a lot of that is this build, though. It is highly mistake-tolerant. It's going to be fun to run through this game with a light dex build next, perhaps a dual-wielding status effect imposing character with no magic, no shields, and light armor. I'm going to hate everything and it's gonna be awesome.
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
Has there been any word on fixing all the hacking/banning the victims of hackers nonsense on PC? I'd love to keep my Ember and be invaded and have the fun emergent gameplay, but the fear of someone using an exploit to reduce me to level 1 or wack me and give me a million souls and get me banned has me jumping off a cliff every time I'm Ember'd =/
I also haven't seen a single confirmed instance of someone getting banned by a hacker. Imo it's mostly just fear mongering. But your save is right there, so back it up if you have any concerns.
General_Armchair on
3DS Friend Code:
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
I also haven't seen a single confirmed instance of someone getting banned by a hacker. Imo it's mostly just fear mongering. But your save is right there, so back it up if you have any concerns.
You are a gentleman (and/or gentlelady) and a scholar.
I think you guys just made me realize a big reason why I dislike the story of Dark Souls 3: They've stated that this is absolutely the conclusion to the Dark Souls saga.
But why? There is absolutely zero reason why it would be, from a story perspective. The endings are almost word for word the exact same ones we've had for two games now, and those did just fine with sequels.
Because Miyazaki doesn't want to keep rehashing Dark Souls and wants his company to work on new IP. Same reason he was working on Bloodborne while the other team was making Dark Souls 2. Ending Dark Souls is not about conclusively ending the series. It's about Miyazaki refusing to do yearly Dark Souls releases from now until infinity, which is 100% what Bamco would want if he would agree to it.
Also, you can use your backups to let you try out wacky builds without risking "wasting" one of your 5 respecs. Just backup your save before trying out the experimental build and then roll back to your backup if you end up hating it.
I've been trying really hard not to think about DS3's story, but you guys make that quite difficult. At this point, it's clear to me that there was never any intention of answering any of the questions they raised in DS1 or 2, and wasted a great opportunity to provide the players both some context for the journeys we have undertaken, understanding of the consequences of those journeys, and some form of "resolution" to the story of cycles and struggle.
But they didn't. They just made a bunch of nostalgiaporn and easter eggs. Maybe we'll get the good endings and lore in the DLC.
It could also be a statement that ultimately everything in this world is meaningless and nothing will ever stop or change the cycle of Fire and Dark. Basically Sisyphus: Game Edition.
There are stronger ways to make this statement, and as presented, it ignores the Scholar ending of DS2. So long as that thread hangs, we don't actually know if nothing will ever stop or change the cycle.
Actually, I think that's my biggest problem. DS1 introduced the concept of the cycle, DS2 expanded on how endless and meaningless it was, SotFS opened a new and interesting idea, that there might be another way, to reject the cycle entirely, and then DS3... just does the cycle again.]
Maybe. I still need to see that last ending, but I haven't had any motivation to play this week. Work's been brutal, and I just started reading Homestuck for the first time, and clicking through web pages is less intensive than DS3...
The SotFS ending doesn't break the cycle at all though. It's just DS1's dark lord ending where you walk away from the flame, except Aldia was right that there was a choice to reject it personally. The bearer of the curse in DS2 didn't break the curse. She rejected it for herself only, by gathering the power of the crowns and becoming immune to hollowing.
Also, Miyazaki never said the stories of his games were just themes with no meaning. He said he likes to design the stories with gaps that must be filled, because he was a bad reader as a child and had to do that with books he liked. And he does an amazing job at evoking that same thing.
An example from DS3:
The game explicitly tells you that Sulyvahn was a sorcerer who became swallowed by greed when he found the profaned flame under the tundra, and took the mantle of Pontiff. And that he fed Gwyndolin to Aldrich.
You have to dig in to the item descriptions and make some interpretations to understand that Gwyndolin had been operating as the leader of the moon church in Irithyll before Sulyvahn usurped the title from him and betrayed him.
The game basically gives you some big picture story, but if you want all the details, you have to dig, and sometimes make interpretations that may differ from person to person, but that's okay. It's intended.
Did DS1 introduce the concept of a cycle, or did nerds make it up? All I remember is "this thing is running out and then it will be gone."
The idea of cycles was introduced by DS2. In DS1, you're at the end of the first cycle. I mean, when people finished DS1, they understandably asked questions like "Does linking the fire just make us like Gwyn and it'll fade again?" or "Is the dark lord ending the good one because you don't sacrifice yourself and now you're a tough guy?"
It wasn't until DS2, especially Straid of Olaphis' dialogues where he explicitly tells you that the cycle happens over and over, whether the flame is linked or not, and new kingdoms rise each time that it was really explicit. That, and the fact that game introduced the idea that the lord souls were still influencing things down the line, since their souls were in the 4 bosses you had to kill in that game too.
I personally would've liked it most if DS3 continued with that, those original lord souls influencing things, and you had a chance to really put an end to the cycle or the world once and for all, but that isn't the way they decided to go, and I still love the game.
You have to dig in to the item descriptions and make some interpretations to understand that Gwyndolin had been operating as the leader of the moon church in Irithyll before Sulyvahn usurped the title from him and betrayed him.
Curious, did not know this, where is it from?
Also, I am absolutely FURIOUS if anyone thinks it is a good thing to write your stories in a way that makes them seem LOST IN TRANSLATION. I get that that's the inspiration, but it's not a good thing.
It makes me feel that just like Miyazaki reading stories of a different language and not getting everything due to bad translation, what I'm getting with a Souls game is a story that someone actually logically thought through but only gives me half of it. That's not "thought provoking", that's just an incomplete story.
That's impressionism for you, it's what gives the games their dream-like feeling. It's not a good way to convey a narrative! But it's very good at what it sets out to do.
Unrelated: I heard there's a 1.06 regulation, but PC still shows 1.05 for me. Has it not gone live for PC yet?
You have to dig in to the item descriptions and make some interpretations to understand that Gwyndolin had been operating as the leader of the moon church in Irithyll before Sulyvahn usurped the title from him and betrayed him.
Curious, did not know this, where is it from?
Also, I am absolutely FURIOUS if anyone thinks it is a good thing to write your stories in a way that makes them seem LOST IN TRANSLATION. I get that that's the inspiration, but it's not a good thing.
It makes me feel that just like Miyazaki reading stories of a different language and not getting everything due to bad translation, what I'm getting with a Souls game is a story that someone actually logically thought through but only gives me half of it. That's not "thought provoking", that's just an incomplete story.
Miyazaki didn't get inspired by reading books in a different language. He was reading books in his native language, but he was a poor reader, so he only understood parts of it, and filled the gaps in with his own imagination. He wants you to feel the same way when you play his games. He wants you to have the story told to you through the enemies you fight, the locations you visit, the dialogues, the item descriptions.
He wants to tell you that
The Nameless King was Gwyn's firstborn, and betrayed him to side with the dragons.
But he wants you to decide for yourself:
- Why he did it.
- Why Ornstein followed him to Archdragon Peak, other than we know that he was the firstborn's first knight.
- What was Ornstein's ultimate fate, since we find his weapon and armor there but nothing else.
I personally love it.
As for the Gwyndolin stuff:
There's a lot of stuff:
Gwyndolin is named as the god of the darkmoon in one of Aldrich's descriptions. We know the church in Irithyll worshipped the moon before Sulyvahn took over.
One of the biggest ones is the Golden Ritual Spear that you find above Sulyvahn's boss room. It looks just like what Gwyndolin wielded, and it's a spear that was given to Darkmoon Knights before Sulyvahn claimed the title of pontiff, suggesting he took the title from Gwyndolin before he locked him in the cathedral to be eaten by Aldrich.
You have to dig in to the item descriptions and make some interpretations to understand that Gwyndolin had been operating as the leader of the moon church in Irithyll before Sulyvahn usurped the title from him and betrayed him.
Curious, did not know this, where is it from?
Also, I am absolutely FURIOUS if anyone thinks it is a good thing to write your stories in a way that makes them seem LOST IN TRANSLATION. I get that that's the inspiration, but it's not a good thing.
It makes me feel that just like Miyazaki reading stories of a different language and not getting everything due to bad translation, what I'm getting with a Souls game is a story that someone actually logically thought through but only gives me half of it. That's not "thought provoking", that's just an incomplete story.
Miyazaki didn't get inspired by reading books in a different language. He was reading books in his native language, but he was a poor reader, so he only understood parts of it, and filled the gaps in with his own imagination. He wants you to feel the same way when you play his games. He wants you to have the story told to you through the enemies you fight, the locations you visit, the dialogues, the item descriptions.
He wants to tell you that
The Nameless King was Gwyn's firstborn, and betrayed him to side with the dragons.
But he wants you to decide for yourself:
- Why he did it.
- Why Ornstein followed him to Archdragon Peak, other than we know that he was the firstborn's first knight.
- What was Ornstein's ultimate fate, since we find his weapon and armor there but nothing else.
I personally love it.
As for the Gwyndolin stuff:
There's a lot of stuff:
Gwyndolin is named as the god of the darkmoon in one of Aldrich's descriptions. We know the church in Irithyll worshipped the moon before Sulyvahn took over.
One of the biggest ones is the Golden Ritual Spear that you find above Sulyvahn's boss room. It looks just like what Gwyndolin wielded, and it's a spear that was given to Darkmoon Knights before Sulyvahn claimed the title of pontiff, suggesting he took the title from Gwyndolin before he locked him in the cathedral to be eaten by Aldrich.
Posts
"First" being temporal rather than a rank would make Aldia seem too young.
Seems the range and straight trajectory are the reasons to use it. Stealth and binoculars.
oh hey big zam
*sad trombone *
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
Of bizarrely fortuitous timing, I was home sick Tuesday and yesterday as well, so I got about 12 hours of souling in. Finished up Catacombs just before I went to bed last night, I'm so glad this game started working because I'm enjoying the heck out of it.
There's no reason to play on the scholar of the first sin wording with yet another behind the scenes character who doesn't think somebody should link the flame, etc.
It's a nod and a wink to Aldia more or less because again, it's not that important to DS3's story. But I don't see any real argument against it.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Aldia was the foremost experimenter guy in DS2. More importantly, it's just about the fact that he's called the scholar of the first sin in DS2. To me, it's a clear case of one of those things where over the course of time, the title of "scholar of the first sin" becomes "first of the scholars," etc. Plus this first of the scholars is the one who doubts the linking of the fire and mentors prince Lothric about that. There's only one character in DS lore that's ever really doubted linking the fire and it was Aldia.
Also, the scholars in Lothric, who presumably the "first of the scholars" was the founder ended up locking themselves in the archives and doing freaky deaky experiments relating to dragons. Sound familiar?
But they didn't. They just made a bunch of nostalgiaporn and easter eggs. Maybe we'll get the good endings and lore in the DLC.
Yeah, I love DS3 as a self contained game. Love all of it. Still replaying it and will be for a while. It's so much fun.
But in the context of being the third in a trilogy, it doesn't really do anything interesting with the story or anything the other games haven't done already.
Really hoping the DLC improves on that.
Think you've got the wrong game
"Good" as in "Interesting", not "Good" as in "Happy".
It could also be a statement that ultimately everything in this world is meaningless and nothing will ever stop or change the cycle of Fire and Dark. Basically Sisyphus: Game Edition.
But why? There is absolutely zero reason why it would be, from a story perspective. The endings are almost word for word the exact same ones we've had for two games now, and those did just fine with sequels.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
It's already been said in this thread but I'm pretty confident that we'll find a pendant on some random dude (probably that Carthus Crab) and then fight Artorias again because, "LOL Idunnowhynot?"
I mean, yeah, that's the message every game has sent; but after three versions it's just fucking lazy.
It's really good at evoking through atmosphere and allusion but that's all it does. And that's fine as long as you're not looking for an actual story
There are stronger ways to make this statement, and as presented, it ignores the Scholar ending of DS2. So long as that thread hangs, we don't actually know if nothing will ever stop or change the cycle.
Actually, I think that's my biggest problem. DS1 introduced the concept of the cycle, DS2 expanded on how endless and meaningless it was, SotFS opened a new and interesting idea, that there might be another way, to reject the cycle entirely, and then DS3... just does the cycle again.]
Maybe. I still need to see that last ending, but I haven't had any motivation to play this week. Work's been brutal, and I just started reading Homestuck for the first time, and clicking through web pages is less intensive than DS3...
Miyazaki is on record saying as much
Though he's lying. At least in regards to DS1.
Hell, just look at the wealth of lore videos on DS1 vs DS2. The world and direct story of DS1 was actually pretty complete, if obfuscated and scattered. It took effort, and there are still a few gaps, but most everything was there: the creation myth, the rise of the Gods, the decline of the Age of Fire, the attempts to remain in power, and the consequences of the choices that the Chosen Undead can make. It's mysterious, but largely a complete thing.
DS2, on the other hand, got mysterious for mystery's sake. It said far less about it's world, relying less on the story being hard to find, and more on simply not giving players all the pieces. DS3 does this as well.
Or mysterypasta
In some cases though people just didn't care because DS2 wasn't DS1. You can really tell if you watch EpicNameBro's DS2 playthrough on Youtube... It's from right when the game came out and he just doesn't sound like he cares at all. But his "From the Dark" playthrough of DS1? He fucking gushes.
I'm not saying that's the case in every case. And I certainly don't want to start a whole DS1 vs DS2 thing. But I do think that a lot of people that started with DS1 and then moved onto DS2 just didn't give a shit. There's a ton of interesting lore in DS2 and (especially with the DLC) you can get just as much out of it as DS1.
Tank style is still working out. Poise is utterly nonexistent, but I'm not really missing it because I've never actually had high poise in a Souls game before anyway. I'm more concerned with reducing damage so I can take lots of hits, and that's definitely working out. Invader after invader has come at me, expecting a fatroller or something with poor damage, and they've found neither (I'm staying under 70%, and my offensive output is quite respectable). In fact thanks to my sturdy defenses I usually outdamage invaders that are two-handing katanas and other such things.
I haven't lost to an individual invader yet, though I did fall to a pair of covenant guardians after the Pontiff (wasn't aware that was a thing that could happen until it was too late). I probably could have taken them out, but I spent 5 minutes and most of my Estus running in circles at the entrance, trying and failing to summon help. Two invaders jumped in back to back with no problem, but four consecutive ally summons failed, and half the time there weren't even any signs on the ground at all. That's the way it goes. When I resigned myself to my fate and started fighting back, I got one of them down to a single hit before they finished me. Made me think I should have just focused on smart play from the beginning instead of panicking for help -- my tank can really wear down most appropriate SL invaders.
The trick is going to be getting 32+ STR for greatshields with super high stability. Running out of stamina is a consistent problem; I've invested some into END and probably should invest more, but I think I'd rather shoot for greatshields first. And that'll mean boosting my VIT even higher, because as it is I had to remove my hotswap crossbow just to carry this greatsword around and stick under 70%.
The bosses mostly seem pretty easy this time around, too, though to be fair I haven't tried many of them solo. I have run with just an NPC once or twice (mostly for gestures, following that super handy checklist that got posted earlier), and even that has worked out remarkably well compared to how such "help" tended to fare in DS2 (they usually just made it harder). I imagine the Pontiff is pretty rough solo in the second phase, but High Lord was a total wet fart once you know the trick, and the Old Demon King was easier than the demon that guards the entrance to the area.
I think a lot of that is this build, though. It is highly mistake-tolerant. It's going to be fun to run through this game with a light dex build next, perhaps a dual-wielding status effect imposing character with no magic, no shields, and light armor. I'm going to hate everything and it's gonna be awesome.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
"c:users/username/appdata/roaming /darksoulsIII
Back it up and sleep easy.
I also haven't seen a single confirmed instance of someone getting banned by a hacker. Imo it's mostly just fear mongering. But your save is right there, so back it up if you have any concerns.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
You are a gentleman (and/or gentlelady) and a scholar.
Because Miyazaki doesn't want to keep rehashing Dark Souls and wants his company to work on new IP. Same reason he was working on Bloodborne while the other team was making Dark Souls 2. Ending Dark Souls is not about conclusively ending the series. It's about Miyazaki refusing to do yearly Dark Souls releases from now until infinity, which is 100% what Bamco would want if he would agree to it.
Also, you can use your backups to let you try out wacky builds without risking "wasting" one of your 5 respecs. Just backup your save before trying out the experimental build and then roll back to your backup if you end up hating it.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
The SotFS ending doesn't break the cycle at all though. It's just DS1's dark lord ending where you walk away from the flame, except Aldia was right that there was a choice to reject it personally. The bearer of the curse in DS2 didn't break the curse. She rejected it for herself only, by gathering the power of the crowns and becoming immune to hollowing.
An example from DS3:
You have to dig in to the item descriptions and make some interpretations to understand that Gwyndolin had been operating as the leader of the moon church in Irithyll before Sulyvahn usurped the title from him and betrayed him.
The game basically gives you some big picture story, but if you want all the details, you have to dig, and sometimes make interpretations that may differ from person to person, but that's okay. It's intended.
The idea of cycles was introduced by DS2. In DS1, you're at the end of the first cycle. I mean, when people finished DS1, they understandably asked questions like "Does linking the fire just make us like Gwyn and it'll fade again?" or "Is the dark lord ending the good one because you don't sacrifice yourself and now you're a tough guy?"
It wasn't until DS2, especially Straid of Olaphis' dialogues where he explicitly tells you that the cycle happens over and over, whether the flame is linked or not, and new kingdoms rise each time that it was really explicit. That, and the fact that game introduced the idea that the lord souls were still influencing things down the line, since their souls were in the 4 bosses you had to kill in that game too.
I personally would've liked it most if DS3 continued with that, those original lord souls influencing things, and you had a chance to really put an end to the cycle or the world once and for all, but that isn't the way they decided to go, and I still love the game.
Curious, did not know this, where is it from?
Also, I am absolutely FURIOUS if anyone thinks it is a good thing to write your stories in a way that makes them seem LOST IN TRANSLATION. I get that that's the inspiration, but it's not a good thing.
It makes me feel that just like Miyazaki reading stories of a different language and not getting everything due to bad translation, what I'm getting with a Souls game is a story that someone actually logically thought through but only gives me half of it. That's not "thought provoking", that's just an incomplete story.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Unrelated: I heard there's a 1.06 regulation, but PC still shows 1.05 for me. Has it not gone live for PC yet?
Miyazaki didn't get inspired by reading books in a different language. He was reading books in his native language, but he was a poor reader, so he only understood parts of it, and filled the gaps in with his own imagination. He wants you to feel the same way when you play his games. He wants you to have the story told to you through the enemies you fight, the locations you visit, the dialogues, the item descriptions.
He wants to tell you that
But he wants you to decide for yourself:
- Why he did it.
- Why Ornstein followed him to Archdragon Peak, other than we know that he was the firstborn's first knight.
- What was Ornstein's ultimate fate, since we find his weapon and armor there but nothing else.
I personally love it.
As for the Gwyndolin stuff:
Gwyndolin is named as the god of the darkmoon in one of Aldrich's descriptions. We know the church in Irithyll worshipped the moon before Sulyvahn took over.
One of the biggest ones is the Golden Ritual Spear that you find above Sulyvahn's boss room. It looks just like what Gwyndolin wielded, and it's a spear that was given to Darkmoon Knights before Sulyvahn claimed the title of pontiff, suggesting he took the title from Gwyndolin before he locked him in the cathedral to be eaten by Aldrich.
Good explanation, thanks!
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird