His lady's Painted World

>his lady's Painted World
What did they mean by this?

>What did they mean by this?
What did she mean by this?

Tfw your PR intern doesn't understand the deep lore

Hmmmm

It's just a cool fan painting.
No lore.
No DS4.

Only nerds care about lore

It could be that they do know and this is just wishful thinking. Afterall the new world was painted with the Dark Soul so maybe a bit of Gael still persists in it afterall.

So... what's your point?
They put reasons behind the acts of the characters in the videogame but it's just "for the nerds" and therefore nobody should care about it?

I'm gonna guess your mother does not know you're on the computer. Go do your homework.

Nerd

Shitpost of the day

Doesn't his lady make ALL the painted worlds?

The lore in DS3 and DS2 is just painfully bad.
In Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne the lore felt really consistent, it felt like every bit of it was building a better picture of the world at large. Especially so in Bloodborne because you have relatively few pieces but they all pretty much mattered. Like the worshop hunters for example :
The workshop hunters in and of themselves have a lot of lore about them, but then there are different schools within the worshop and they all contribute to building a better picture of the hunters and the culture surrounding them. Or the different arms and factions within the Healing Church. They're smaller things part of a bigger picture.

In Dark Souls 2 and 3 they make up shit like "oh okay, here are some Forossan Lion Knights" or "oh, here's some lore about Slave Knights used as cannon fodder by normal human armies" and they never elaborate on them further and they feel like they're not part of a bigger picture or story, they just feel tacked-on additions because they just had to make up lore to make it feel like it has more depth to it than it has.

Lore is important for me to enjoy the games, but DS2 and DS3 make it hard to care about it because it's hard to tell whether something's actually relevant to the lore or if it's a throwaway reference.

What's more nerdy than a game where you have to read literally every item's description to know what the fuck you're even doing?

>Elitists.

I love dark souls 2 but i will agree the lore wasnt the best. Dark souls 3 has great lore though, it basically just builds upon the lore from dark souls 1, it couldnt have remained static forever

Are there any other games that do the lore like DS1 and BB but are also fun to play?

thank god.

Needs to be allowed to die

Yes, you're a Bloodborne fanboy and everything that's not Bloodborne is inferior, we get it.

It feels realistic, like you are actually fumbling around in a new world, unlocking bits and pieces of your understanding. No one in real life is ever just going to bust out a paragraph of the history of United States for no reason, like in most games. You get tid bits, and you extrapolate which is fun if you aren't a brainlet. It's an extra part of the game.

Plus, when you go out of your fucking way to find that hard to find fucking item, realize it's some worthless shit, the new lore makes it feel as though it's worth it. The immersion part is more important though.

You are entitled to your limited opinion, yes.

I respect your opinion, the lore can be a bit sketchy, but don't you dare lump Old Ivory King in there

>"oh okay, here are some Forossan Lion Knights" or "oh, here's some lore about Slave Knights used as cannon fodder by normal human armies" and they never elaborate on them further and they feel like they're not part of a bigger picture or story,

dark souls 1 did that all the time
like the onion knights

>the knights of the kingdom of catarina dress like onions and people make fun of them
>that's the lore

damn PCbros mad in this thread

>You're a Bloodborne fanboy and everything that's not Bloodborne is inferior

Actually I like Dark Souls 1 a lot. I think the lore and the story is better in Bloodborne but DS1 excels in other areas.

>Dark Souls 3 has great lore though
I'm pretty skeptical about Dark Souls 3's lore because so much of it reeks of fanservice that you can't be sure whether they're just throwing in a reference or if it's an "actual" lore entry.

It wasn't terrible as a sequel but what I'm saying is that Fromsoft should not do direct sequels to their games like DS2 / DS3. I like Dark Souls 3 for the gameplay, the overall "feel" and the bosses, but a lot of the things about the lore are just weak and it has to do both with the fact that it's a sequel to a game that didn't need a sequel and the fact that instead of delivering a focused experience they're spreading the lore into so many different things that the major things don't get any development.

>Are there any other games that do lore like DS1 and BB but are also fun to play?
Depends. I liked the STALKER series a lot. It's a very different type of game but I personally kind of got into the game and am also interested in the lore and the setting of the series even though it's not something that probably was intended to be at the focus because the game is still mostly "just" an FPS.

literally this. and don't even get started on Tarkus and the Berenike knights, how did one get to the painted world if Tarkus was the only one to get past Sens Fortress to anor londo.

>the knights of the kingdom of catarina dress like onions and people make fun of them
Yes, but the Catarina people are also a starting race, which means that they're left somewhat ambiguous in nature so that people can fill in the gaps in roleplay.

Neither the forossan Lion Knights nor Slave Knights were starting classes nor were they expanded upon. And I think it' s dumb that Forossan Lion knights were not expanded upon in the fucking DLC that had ties to Forossa, e.g the Ivory King DLC. Instead of having Astoran Elite Knights in the DLC they could've had Forossan Lion Knights who decided to follow the Ivory King or something idk.

Ivory King DLC was good lore wise because it was it's own separate "realm" in and of itself and the DLC had it's own self-contained mini lore which provided adequate justification for the action and it was pretty intriguing. I genuinely liked the story of Ivory King and Alsanna and the Old Gayos.

no no, what you said is completely false, don't even dare suggest that dark souls isn't a masterpiece of a game, a story and and and

Why do you think she is an intern?
PR departments are a joke everywhere

What?
Aria is Gael's lady. He even refers to her as "my lady" when he says "my lady's painting".

>Don't get even started on Tarkus and the Berenike Knights

The Berenike Knights and the Balder Knights actually are part of the bigger picture. The Undead Parish and Sen's Fortress are both littered with corpses and hollowed out remains of said invasion force. They're definitely a part of the bigger picture instead of just being namedropped lazily in the description of a single set.

>how did one get to the painted World if Tarkus was the only one to get past Sens Fortress to Anor Londo?
He wasn't the only one clearly because there's balder knight in dark Anor Londo.

As someone familiar with Namco's PR machine, trust me: whoever posted this simply made a mistake.

It used to be handled by dedicated community managers, but since the series is over they've handed it off to a 3rd party PR company tasked with continuing generic engagement. Hence why most of their posts follow a distinct formula. It's usually just art and "who's your favourite character!?" posts now.

Fuck off SilverMont

Whoever's in charge they're updating the social media of a game company, they can't be expected to really deeply care about the lore of the toys they're advertising lmao. It's as if joe schmoe was hired to update Mattel's twitter and they were expected to know the Barbie lore 100% and nerds on a barbie fan forum were laughing at him for "being shit with the lore"

>He wasn't the only one clearly because there's balder knight in dark Anor Londo.
the armor for Balder states they were their own country/people. They are not the same people as the Berenike.
The armor looks different as well.
and with the Balder knight in Dark Anal Rodeo, i don't recall one being there when it's Gywndolin is alive, and no wiki is proving one was there.

He doesn't actually respond to my arguments.
Well now, then.

I've never said Dark Souls 1 was perfect. It has a lot of throwaway lore that was never expanded upon. However, there was less reason to believe that Fromsoft was just making shit up as they went because Dark Souls 1 set the stage and expectations of the lore and the story and DS2 and DS3 went around doing dumb shit like making Gwyn's soul reincarnate into a fire demon in bumfuck nowhere, literally giving Nito a 2edgy4u KATANA, and then Dark Souls 3 comes along and rewrites shit about Izalith and also tries to retcon DS2's shit and managed to mangle one of the high points of DS2 for no reason except to spite it I guess.

Think of it this way :
3 friends are writing a story playing off of each other but working completely separately.

Friend 1 creates a pretty cool story in a fresh setting but he kind of runs out of time towards the end and he isn't even told that the two friends are going to continue the story so he doesn't leave them any room to work with except the things he had no time or intention to finish.

Friend 2 is tasked with continuing a story that's basically already finished but with kind of a cliffhanger ending. So Friend 2 just recycles some same ideas in another setting but within the same universe and makes up a justification why it was happening elsewhere and it ends up being a "meanwhile in X" fanfic.

Friend 3 gets butthurt that he wasn't the one to go after 1 because when he read what 1 wrote he had a good idea about how to go about filling in the blanks of 1 and he hates what 2 wrote so he butthugs 1's writing and essentially copies the major elements of 1 and what of 2 he's forced to implement he makes very spiteful references to. And then he makes a really jumbled mess of 1 and 2 but his worldbuilding and presentation makes up for the terrible story he wrote.

>Not considering Dark Souls 2 a standalone game and 3 the only real sequel to 1.

Post discarded.

The Berenike Knights were an ORDER of knights within the Kingdom of Balder. They were part of the same kingdom but the Berenike knights were a distinct order with the kingdom.

>not considering 2 a standalone game
Practically it is and should've been a completely separate i.p to 1. As it stands now though, it isn't. It's still called "Dark Souls 2 " and Dark Souls 3 keeps it in the canon so while I definitely don't want to think about DS2 as an actual sequel to DS2, the fact of the matter is that officially it is a sequel and you can't just write it out of canon because the developers confirm in 3 that it's canon.

Agreed for DS2 but not DS3.

In DS3 you learn about many things in the lore practically a year ahead of even the DLC getting released like the Millwood Knights, Ariandel and Darkeater Midir before they even appear including their relations to one another and their goals they all failed at achieving in some manner.

FFFWHYYYYYY
God I loved that boss fight
>that harp
>that entry
BULLY

>In DS3 you learn about many things in the lore practically a year ahead of even the DLC getting released

You mean you learn of DLC2 shit from DLC1 ? I believe that the DLCs were originally meant to be a combined release like Old Hunters but Bamco wanted them to release them separately.


Dark Souls 3 is cool but DS2 unfortunately already bogpilled me into realizing that Fromsoft didn't intend Dark Souls to have a multi-game overarching story and they're pretty bad at selling even the illusion due to DS2 sitting uncomfortably in the middle.

If DS1 and DS3 had been released back to back it would've been more reasonable to grant them the benefit of the doubt and assume that that's what they wanted to do in DS1 but just didn't have the time etc.