Is it really a good idea for the Souls games to have sequels at all? I mean, the writing is already pretty niche since it's so demanding of interpretation and finding all the little connecting pieces, and even when people do it they get a lot of it wrong.
How can anyone but the most avid lore enthusiasts expect to understand what's going on in Dark Souls 3? 2 was stretching it, but with 3 you might as well not even bother unless it's not very connected to its predecessors.
>Is it really a good idea for the Souls games to have sequels at all?
no, sequels of souls suck as DaS proved
If they want to spend their time on writing stupid shit that isn't necessary for some nerds then go right ahead, I for one just ignore the story part completely and have no interest in it other than watching the intro cutscene, to me DS is just a fun video game, the rest is unnecessary.
I think they should've just make souls games in different universes, like Demon Souls, Dark Souls and now Bloodbourne.
They should've just skipped DaS 2 and just made Blood Souls instead.
>>320602458
How about just Darkborne?
>>320602154
DS1 was never meant to have a sequel, it's a very self sufficient game when it comes to story and lore. Namco just wanted to cash in on the hype suraunding the game and things went to shit.
>>320602339
If the rest is unnecessary why not make a new IP so we have new types of enemies to fight and different types of locations to explore?
>>320602517
How about giving it a name that sums up what it's about, e.g., infections that are transmitted through blood?
The game is fun to play so sequels are welcome.
I don't care about lore or story.
>>320602525
DaS2 doesn't even make sense in how it reuses all these concepts from Das1, like bonfires and kindling, which were only in that form in DaS1 because one of the motives in that game was fire.
That isn't the case in DaS2, so them reusing them makes no sense.
>>320602534
because greed and retards needing sequels of games
see retards who buy games only because its "sequel to this game that was good" despite the sequel being a pile of shit
>>320602707
At this point in time there's only one sequel to a Souls game, the others are spiritual sequels only. We could still play Souls games without them being true sequels.
DS2 retroactively gave less impact to the weight of linking the fire or not in DS1, which irked me
I don't care if they do entirely different lore, but it sucks when it detracts from the 1st game's
>>320602817
I'm sure people would buy other Souls games even if they're not sequels. It would be lame to put 'Souls' in the title of everything, but it worked for Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. I don't think Bloodborne passed many people by just because it wasn't named 'Souls' though.
There are very few games where direct narrative sequels are a good idea. Publishers and developers love them because it means less creative effort but 90% of the time a final fantasy style sequel which maintains some of the gameplay and tone but none of the story is the best option.
Dark souls is a good example of this. So is Fallout, which is constantly made worse through Bethesda insistence on dragging out the same elements every fucking game even though there's no reason for radscorpions or super mutants to be on the east coast
