Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-24459775-20140315020817/@comment-167.154.37.78-20160422162938

Here is how I see everything with my explanations.

1) DS1 and 2 are merely connected in regard to the continuous cycle of the undead, with DS 2 occurring much longer after DS 1 (Since Gwyn was literally the first to rise against the ancient dragons. Additionally, you get soul items in reference to the past such as the boss souls and pyromancies and miracles and so on.)

2) DS 1 and DS 2 takes place in different places in a similar world. This can be deduced by DS 3 gameplay when we visit Anor Londo with very few differences that could be explained by the convolution of time. Therefore, DS 2 couldn't be in the same place as DS 1 or DS 3 (which are in the same spots).

3) The heros in both DS 1 and DS 2 are separate heros. This is deduced based off the 1st one relinking or extinguishing the flame while the second is accepting or denouncing a throne to rule over a kingdom.

4) SPECULATION: The lord souls are able to be consumed by other entities (Gwyns soul being collected or given to the old iron king, Seaths portion being collected or given to the Duke's Spider, etc.)

Ultimately, as terrible as I've got to say, the Director of DS (Hidetaka Miyazaki) did not direct DS 2 but is back directing DS 3. There is a clear connection between 1 and 3 with 2 being quite vague and obscure from the DS Lore. DS 2 seems to me to be more independent from the actual DS Lore with plenty of easter eggs OR a sad and confusing attempt to making it a genuine sequel to number 1.

I love every DS game in the series (never played Demon Souls or Bloodbourne because Im on XBOX) and I don't intend on discrediting what they've done; however, in regard to DS 1 and DS 2's connection...I feel like the only connection is what us consumers conjure up. I don't think the production team and directors did a good enough job really connecting the two stories (not sure if theyre meant to be connected or not). Especially when we now have DS 3 to compare and contrast with and there are clear signs of connections with the first. Someone prove me wrong please :'(