Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-29522860-20160809040855/@comment-4511886-20160809065653

I've come to think of it as a lose-lose situation regardless of how it goes.

If the Flame is linked, it's just postponing the Flame extinguishing. (Although this can't actually happen, according to the Emerald Herald.) This means more undeath, and thus more fear, pain and death for everyone.

However, if the Flame isn't linked, then the whole world will most likely be turned into Oolacile. Alternatively, the Dark Soul is also fueled by the First Flame, meaning it will become equally worthless once the Flame is gone.

Personally, I'd go for the Age of Dark just because it's worth a shot compared to having thousands of people go through the pain of undeath and linking the Flame over and over for millenia. Best-case scenario, everything goes unicorns and rainbows. Worst-case, everyone is screwed, which they were anyway. (Then again, I take DaSII's lore just as seriously as the other games', so I suppose it wouldn't do much anyway.)

Sort of fitting to Dark Souls' atmosphere, to my mind. No matter what you do, your attempts to change the world are futile. Gives the lore that despair that the gameplay is so famous for.

Just my own theories, of course. The whole Link the Flame vs. Age of Dark argument is one that is purely based on speculation.