Dark Souls 3's DLC Will (Probably) Mark the End of the Series

Dark Souls 3's DLC Will (Probably) Mark the End of the Series

mapon_bridge05

The DLC for Dark Souls 3 will likely mark the end of the franchise, according to From Software president Hidetaka Miyazaki.

Earlier today we got a look at new gameplay footage for Dark Souls 3's Ashes of Ariandel expansion, due out in October. It seems likely that the upcoming release marks the beginning of the end of the franchise, according to statements from From Software president Hidetaka Miyazaki.

Speaking with Polygon, Miyazaki said that it is "time to move away from the Dark Souls franchise," and that while others within the company may want to resurrect the series in the future, it is the current belief that the franchise will be complete after the release of the two upcoming DLC, of which Ashes of Ariandel is the first.

"It's time to move away from the Dark Souls franchise," Miyazaki said. "As president of From Software, I'm not completely denying the possibility of bringing back the franchise in the future. There could be someone else in my company who wants to work on new installments. But we believe that the series will end after the two DLC."

Miyazaki went on to say that he isn't opposed to working on a "Dark Souls-like game or a dark fantasy game."

Ashes of Ariandel is slated to release for PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC on October 25, with the second DLC coming in early 2017.

Permalink

You know, there still is Dark Souls 1 to bring to modern systems with visual and other such upgrades...so...that would be really nice to experience for a non-pc peasant with nary the console to appreciate the allegedly best entry to the series. If you made it very extra nice and shiny and smooth, that would be a bonus. Just throwing that out there. It would be great to end on a fitting tribute, right?

Xsjadoblayde:
You know, there still is Dark Souls 1 to bring to modern systems with visual and other such upgrades...so...that would be really nice to experience for a non-pc peasant with nary the console to appreciate the allegedly best entry to the series. If you made it very extra nice and shiny and smooth, that would be a bonus. Just throwing that out there. It would be great to end on a fitting tribute, right?

Its on PS3 and 360 though.

While I love Dark Souls 1, and honestly...would likely buy an updated version...I think Demon Souls is the most logical game to update, since it is currently just a PS3 exclusive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Dark Souls originally supposed to end with...Dark Souls?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that we got more, and I love Dark Souls II, but we've heard this before it seems.

And on that note, does this mean that the final DLC with be like Scholar of the First Sin, in that it adds stuff to the ending of III itself? Or do they just mean that once the DLC is out, that's it?

Either way, I'm okay if Dark Souls takes a break. I feel like III was missing some of the magic from the first two games. While it was certainly fun and I liked finding out what happened to everyone, that air of mystery was kind of lacking. Plus, there's always another Bloodborne out there, I'm sure.

It would be nice if they re-made Dark Souls...

Not just for the graphical upgrade, but also for some much needed optimization. Most of the game ran fine, but there were some areas... Blighttown... that were so poorly optimized, that even my behemoth of a PC rig would start lagging if I looked at the wrong angles. I tried playing Dark Souls on the Xbox One, and I have no idea how I managed to slog through that area without entering a deep state of psychosis.

Xsjadoblayde:
You know, there still is Dark Souls 1 to bring to modern systems with visual and other such upgrades...so...that would be really nice to experience for a non-pc peasant with nary the console to appreciate the allegedly best entry to the series. If you made it very extra nice and shiny and smooth, that would be a bonus. Just throwing that out there. It would be great to end on a fitting tribute, right?

I got Dark Souls free from Xbox's Games With Gold. According to my Xbox 360 I also have Dark Souls for Xbox One.

Wouldn't mind a new setting. Don't have (or want) a PS4 so I've only enjoyed Bloodborne through youtube, but a new souls'esque game in a similar vein to that? All for it. Let's just hope it's not exclusive to peasant hardware again.

Time for a trillogy bundle with all the DLCs!

I'm cool with this. Frankly, I'm getting the feeling there was never supposed to be a sequel to DS. You know, with it being set at the end of the world and all that. When the game did so well and people(especially NB) started asking for a sequel or two, there was no doubt a sense of "Fuck. Where do you go from the end of the world?"

DS2 pretty much avoided the whole question of the DS ending by "something something cycles!" and DS3 decided "Wibbly Wobbly Timely Whimey. Ignore DS2 and it's Really Really the end this time!"

The creator has outright said he's done with the series and wants to do something else(and Bloodborne kinda made that point a while back). Just let it rest. Stop rekindling the damn flame and let it die already.

Dark Soul's ended with one, as far as I'm concerned. How many times can the fucking world end?

Saelune:

Xsjadoblayde:
You know, there still is Dark Souls 1 to bring to modern systems with visual and other such upgrades...so...that would be really nice to experience for a non-pc peasant with nary the console to appreciate the allegedly best entry to the series. If you made it very extra nice and shiny and smooth, that would be a bonus. Just throwing that out there. It would be great to end on a fitting tribute, right?

Its on PS3 and 360 though.

While I love Dark Souls 1, and honestly...would likely buy an updated version...I think Demon Souls is the most logical game to update, since it is currently just a PS3 exclusive.

Demon Souls would still be a PS exclusive, though, seeing as it's owned by Sony. I really hope they leave it alone. They butchered the Dark Souls lore with their sequels. I would hate to see them do the same to Demon Soul's. Being the underrated game has its advantages, it seems. A re-release would be nice.

Sniper Team 4:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Dark Souls originally supposed to end with...Dark Souls?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that we got more, and I love Dark Souls II, but we've heard this before it seems.

And on that note, does this mean that the final DLC with be like Scholar of the First Sin, in that it adds stuff to the ending of III itself? Or do they just mean that once the DLC is out, that's it?

Either way, I'm okay if Dark Souls takes a break. I feel like III was missing some of the magic from the first two games. While it was certainly fun and I liked finding out what happened to everyone, that air of mystery was kind of lacking. Plus, there's always another Bloodborne out there, I'm sure.

I'm worried that people keep wanting to bring it back. Miyazaki wanted it to end with one, but the company kept forcing them to make more. Now it sounds like some of his subordinates want to just drive the franchise into the ground with their lack of vision. I'm sure they'd be quite happy making nothing but Dark Soul's for the rest of their lives. Personally, I want From to move on, or else they'll stagnate and die.

Dalisclock:
Just let it rest. Stop rekindling the damn flame and let it die already.

Relax guy they are. Not sure what you're whining about.

Fox12:
Dark Soul's ended with one, as far as I'm concerned. How many times can the fucking world end?

Saelune:

Xsjadoblayde:
You know, there still is Dark Souls 1 to bring to modern systems with visual and other such upgrades...so...that would be really nice to experience for a non-pc peasant with nary the console to appreciate the allegedly best entry to the series. If you made it very extra nice and shiny and smooth, that would be a bonus. Just throwing that out there. It would be great to end on a fitting tribute, right?

Its on PS3 and 360 though.

While I love Dark Souls 1, and honestly...would likely buy an updated version...I think Demon Souls is the most logical game to update, since it is currently just a PS3 exclusive.

Demon Souls would still be a PS exclusive, though, seeing as it's owned by Sony. I really hope they leave it alone. They butchered the Dark Souls lore with their sequels. I would hate to see them do the same to Demon Soul's. Being the underrated game has its advantages, it seems. A re-release would be nice.

Sniper Team 4:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Dark Souls originally supposed to end with...Dark Souls?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that we got more, and I love Dark Souls II, but we've heard this before it seems.

And on that note, does this mean that the final DLC with be like Scholar of the First Sin, in that it adds stuff to the ending of III itself? Or do they just mean that once the DLC is out, that's it?

Either way, I'm okay if Dark Souls takes a break. I feel like III was missing some of the magic from the first two games. While it was certainly fun and I liked finding out what happened to everyone, that air of mystery was kind of lacking. Plus, there's always another Bloodborne out there, I'm sure.

I'm worried that people keep wanting to bring it back. Miyazaki wanted it to end with one, but the company kept forcing them to make more. Now it sounds like some of his subordinates want to just drive the franchise into the ground with their lack of vision. I'm sure they'd be quite happy making nothing but Dark Soul's for the rest of their lives. Personally, I want From to move on, or else they'll stagnate and die.

As I said, a re-release, not a Demon's Souls 2.

And as I made clear with an entire topic about it, I want to keep playing games like Dark Souls...but I hate Dark Souls 2, and its the one game in the series that Miyazaki was not director, so I am reluctant to want them to keep making Souls games without him.

So are they going to do some actual ending to the cycle with the DLC to properly finish the series?

Well they have other franchises to work with too like otogi, kings field or armored core.
They could also pull another bloodborne.
No reason for them to keep clinging to dark souls forever, 3 was good but it kinda got old.

Yeah, then FromSoftware will make Fading Stars, which is just Dark Souls but Sci-fi themed or something

SirSullymore:
Yeah, then FromSoftware will make Fading Stars, which is just Dark Souls but Sci-fi themed or something

Wasn't there something called 'The Surge' or 'The Source' that wants to be Dark Souls in space? But you know, when I read your post I found the idea to be something I'd definitely like to play. And if that never happens we'll at least get 'Nioh' soon.

OT: I haven't started with Dark Souls 3 yet, though I bought it at day 1 (because I need the artbook, shutup). And while I'd hate to see the series end, it's OK. Miyazaki doesn't want to participate in the creation of a fourth entry, but isn't opposed to colleagues making it. And without him I don't really see how it could become a classic like Dark Souls 1. But I guess the genre or gameplay or whatever makes the game work so well is too successful at this point for From Software to let it go. We'll get another game in the same vein, even if it's not named after the existing franchises.

That's fine. Dark Souls 1 had a perfect ending for the franchise anyway. I kind of wish they had just ended it there and allowed DS1 to just be this amazing one-off rather than keep the franchise going. DS2 was... not for me, and DS3 was better but the magic has worn off. It didn't pull me in like the first game. One playthrough and I was done with it. DS1 was lightning in a bottle and I'm happy to have just that game rather than a continuing franchise.

I'm totally fine with Dark Souls finally concluding. I think 3 gave Dark Souls a perfect ending, and unlike a lot of people here, I do think the three games made an excellent trilogy (well, two great games and a pretty good one in the middle). But now it's time for FromSoftware to work on others series. They can keep doing Souls-like games like Bloodborne if they want, but they shouldn't be confined to just that type of gameplay or the Dark Souls setting.

Saelune:

Xsjadoblayde:
You know, there still is Dark Souls 1 to bring to modern systems with visual and other such upgrades...so...that would be really nice to experience for a non-pc peasant with nary the console to appreciate the allegedly best entry to the series. If you made it very extra nice and shiny and smooth, that would be a bonus. Just throwing that out there. It would be great to end on a fitting tribute, right?

Its on PS3 and 360 though.

While I love Dark Souls 1, and honestly...would likely buy an updated version...I think Demon Souls is the most logical game to update, since it is currently just a PS3 exclusive.

Unfortunately for PS4 owners, so far the only option is a subscription service to stream those old titles, which limits the quality of the picture and the framerate. I have no idea what the online capabilities are through that service. It is pretty limited, though I did own Dark Souls 1 on an old 360, it is far far away now in a distant mysterious land. Also would like to try Demon Souls, but not through laggy streaming restrictions. The Dark Souls 2 port/upgrade they did was pretty polished and still runs at least twice the frame rate of DS3 and Bloodborne. It would be nice to see either of the popular early games to be more publicly available if not upscaled to DS2's performance levels. :)

It's time to expand beyond dark souls in my opinion. Past time in fact.

There have been clones, but dark souls really has the whole action/rpg combat down, and between bloodborn and DKS3, they are ready to really release a game (universe) that utilizes it.

You have all the tools needed to allow for nearly endless advancement, specialization and content at this point for a game like this. You start with an initial game about the size of any of the dark souls, but constantly expand on it. You also don't limit character levels, or stat effects etc. New areas that are added can give more exp, meaning you can level up faster a bit (making reaching higher levels faster), but reaching level 1000 would be possible with enough time, and you would still notice a difference in power/health etc when boosting stats at that point.

Much like DS your stats would do more initially, getting you to a set starting point. The first 50 or so vigor for instance would get 20 health a pop, then 50-100 would give 10 and 100+ would give 5 health a pop.

Strenght/dex etc would boost damage, also having diminishing returns, but for S rank weapons at least, still giving 1 damage at least per point even post 100. Strength could also reduce swing speed for heavy weapons (up to a point), and dex could have a similar attack speed bonus for light weapons (or two handed combat), along with bonuses to ranged weapons attack speed as well.

The point would be to keep adding to the game world (perhaps even every month or two), so that you almost never run out of content (especially if you play more then one character). Of course at this point it makes sense to plan for VR as well, which will probably make such a game so addictive they may need to make it illegal hehe.

Xsjadoblayde:

Saelune:

Xsjadoblayde:
You know, there still is Dark Souls 1 to bring to modern systems with visual and other such upgrades...so...that would be really nice to experience for a non-pc peasant with nary the console to appreciate the allegedly best entry to the series. If you made it very extra nice and shiny and smooth, that would be a bonus. Just throwing that out there. It would be great to end on a fitting tribute, right?

Its on PS3 and 360 though.

While I love Dark Souls 1, and honestly...would likely buy an updated version...I think Demon Souls is the most logical game to update, since it is currently just a PS3 exclusive.

Unfortunately for PS4 owners, so far the only option is a subscription service to stream those old titles, which limits the quality of the picture and the framerate. I have no idea what the online capabilities are through that service. It is pretty limited, though I did own Dark Souls 1 on an old 360, it is far far away now in a distant mysterious land. Also would like to try Demon Souls, but not through laggy streaming restrictions. The Dark Souls 2 port/upgrade they did was pretty polished and still runs at least twice the frame rate of DS3 and Bloodborne. It would be nice to see either of the popular early games to be more publicly available if not upscaled to DS2's performance levels. :)

I just want everything to be "archived" for continual play. Its why I re-buy games on Steam, (and occasionally GoG) so that I can keep playing them. Id love to add Demon Souls and Bloodborne to my Steam library.

Hell, I literally have Morrowind and Skyrim (not counting remaster) on every possible platform.

i'm sure there will be more games from From with similar dynamics.

Fox12:
Dark Soul's ended with one, as far as I'm concerned. How many times can the fucking world end?

In Dark Souls they established the the cycle of fire age to dark age to fire age is pretty much a continuous thing. Which is why there were sequels.

OT: Let's remember that Hidetaka Miyazaki also directed Dark Souls II, the hands down weakest entry in the Dark Souls series, and arguably the weakest entry in the entire style. So him killing the goose that laid the golden egg is a given at this point. Considering the success of Kings Field, Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne, which are all spiritually linked. This is killing off one of the traditions of FROM Software, who is bereft of an on going franchise now, after the death of Armored Core... This is looking more and more like they're going to try to pull a damn Konami on the fans.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

Fox12:
Dark Soul's ended with one, as far as I'm concerned. How many times can the fucking world end?

In Dark Souls they established the the cycle of fire age to dark age to fire age is pretty much a continuous thing. Which is why there were sequels.

OT: Let's remember that Hidetaka Miyazaki also directed Dark Souls II, the hands down weakest entry in the Dark Souls series, and arguably the weakest entry in the entire style. So him killing the goose that laid the golden egg is a given at this point. Considering the success of Kings Field, Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne, which are all spiritually linked. This is killing off one of the traditions of FROM Software, who is bereft of an on going franchise now, after the death of Armored Core... This is looking more and more like they're going to try to pull a damn Konami on the fans.

He didn't work on two. They took him off the project very early, and gave it to another director. That guy messed up so badly that they removed him, and replaced him with another guy. He did work on DS3, though, which was pretty bad in its own right.

I'm curious in what way you think their following after Konami, though?

I support this decision. The series, while amazing, is starting to be worn a little thin, so giving it some time away from the light and letting fade a little is a good thing to prevent it from being overdone and going stale ala assassin's creed. It also shows restraint on behalf of the company as opposed to milking the cash cow til it is way past dead, and I can appreciate that. The series didn't overstay its welcome yet, and as such if they come back to it 5 years or so down the line, it will be more fondly remembered for it.

Also this increases the likelihood of more Armored Core...

Fox12:
I'm curious in what way you think their following after Konami, though?

Well Konami, Capcom, Nintendo, Sega, and basically every other Japanese game company. Pairing down franchises until they have nothing left, until the good will of the fans is basically dead. Because these companies are looking for ways to make more money, especially with game sales faltering in Japan... Nintendo is looking to get more into the mobile market, Konami went to Pachinko. That sort of thing.

runic knight:
I support this decision. The series, while amazing, is starting to be worn a little thin, so giving it some time away from the light and letting fade a little is a good thing to prevent it from being overdone and going stale ala assassin's creed. It also shows restraint on behalf of the company as opposed to milking the cash cow til it is way past dead, and I can appreciate that. The series didn't overstay its welcome yet, and as such if they come back to it 5 years or so down the line, it will be more fondly remembered for it.

If they toss out a new title every 3-5 years at this point, they'll be able to keep the franchise alive for a long time yet. Ubisoft screwed up with Assassin's Creed by demanding a new installment every year. It's not that the games have worn out their welcome. It's that they're all the same, there is very little innovation, and they're running out of both plot and historical settings. Dark Souls on the other hand, you can basically make a new one regularly and it'll remain familiar, but also be fresh. It's just not a game you can add a new sequel to every year, like with sports games and most shooters, where you're just giving incremental updates and tweaks for competitive online players. Dark Souls tends to be an intense single player experience, that outside online players occasionally interrupt with an intense assault on the host. That's something that can get stale, but only if the developers are so constantly tasked with such a game, that they get stuck in a rut.

runic knight:
Also this increases the likelihood of more Armored Core...

Armored Core was getting kind of stale and obtuse by the time of Armored Core 3: Nine Breaker, Nexus, and Last Raven. Armored Core 4, For Answer, Armored Core V, and Verdict Day all got roundly mediocre scores generally speaking. The games are pretty niche to begin with, because the depth of customization that's not only possible, but necessary, makes them unfriendly to most gamers. In a gaming market that's already hurting, like in Japan... I wouldn't get my hopes up, unless the Nostalgia bug is really bitting hard for Mech sim fans.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

Fox12:
Dark Soul's ended with one, as far as I'm concerned. How many times can the fucking world end?

In Dark Souls they established the the cycle of fire age to dark age to fire age is pretty much a continuous thing. Which is why there were sequels..

What bothers me about this is that, from the best of my knowledge, they haven't actually shown the age of dark. Apparently, cycles seem to run as such: Flame is going strong, flame starts to die, undead curse appears, some poor smuck gets roped into killing a bunch of dudes to gather souls to rekindle the flame and sacrifice themselves in the process. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Dalisclock:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

Fox12:
Dark Soul's ended with one, as far as I'm concerned. How many times can the fucking world end?

In Dark Souls they established the the cycle of fire age to dark age to fire age is pretty much a continuous thing. Which is why there were sequels..

What bothers me about this is that, from the best of my knowledge, they haven't actually shown the age of dark. Apparently, cycles seem to run as such: Flame is going strong, flame starts to die, undead curse appears, some poor smuck gets roped into killing a bunch of dudes to gather souls to rekindle the flame and sacrifice themselves in the process. Rinse, wash, repeat.

It's hinted that, while that happens, a specific undead breaks the rekindling cycle and initiates a dark age. Especially with the first Dark Souls where your character is either the descendant of, or is in actuality, the Furtive Pygmy, carrier of the Dark Soul. Which means the canon ending for each game is the walking away from the first flame/throne of want/whatever the end objective in Dark Souls III is. It's heavily implied that Darkstalker Kaathe is right and Kingseeker Frampt is merely delaying the inevitable, for example, in the first game. Also we haven't a clue how many cycles passed before the humans appeared, became intelligent, discovered the first flame, obtained the lord souls, and took the surface from the Everlasting Dragons. Also since kingdoms rise and fall, in the same place, over countless eons... That also backs up the idea that the cyclical nature of Fire Age to Dark Age to Fire Age again. Especially with the fact that nothing seems to stay truly dead in the Dark Souls universe.

It's OK. Honestly, even though DS' lore is one of my favourite lores in gaming, they proved that they can do great with one-shots considering Blood Borne. Or Demon's Souls.

Just the style is OK for me. I wouldn't even put it behind them to make a fantastic Sci-Fi Dark Souls not set in a melee-heavy world. Yeah. Actual, proper shooting and melee.

It's ending two games too late, to be honest. The lore of the first perfectly tied up its story and there should've never been sequels to begin with. I can at least appreciate the second game shifting the focus from the cycle to the curse itself, but overall the execution of its themes was shoddy.

The third game's themes and execution were abysmal. Rehash of the first game's plot, shoddy writing, fanservice for fanservice's sake, weak characters with weak plotlines... I found DS3 an utter disappointment lore-wise, and it's the only DS I won't be revisiting or buy the DLC of.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

If they toss out a new title every 3-5 years at this point, they'll be able to keep the franchise alive for a long time yet. Ubisoft screwed up with Assassin's Creed by demanding a new installment every year. It's not that the games have worn out their welcome. It's that they're all the same, there is very little innovation, and they're running out of both plot and historical settings. Dark Souls on the other hand, you can basically make a new one regularly and it'll remain familiar, but also be fresh. It's just not a game you can add a new sequel to every year, like with sports games and most shooters, where you're just giving incremental updates and tweaks for competitive online players. Dark Souls tends to be an intense single player experience, that outside online players occasionally interrupt with an intense assault on the host. That's something that can get stale, but only if the developers are so constantly tasked with such a game, that they get stuck in a rut.

I agree. The break will do good to prevent that, both on the developer's end, and on the players end. Also gives more time to think up innovations in design, mechanics, or execution. And to fix poise.

runic knight:
Also this increases the likelihood of more Armored Core...

Armored Core was getting kind of stale and obtuse by the time of Armored Core 3: Nine Breaker, Nexus, and Last Raven. Armored Core 4, For Answer, Armored Core V, and Verdict Day all got roundly mediocre scores generally speaking. The games are pretty niche to begin with, because the depth of customization that's not only possible, but necessary, makes them unfriendly to most gamers. In a gaming market that's already hurting, like in Japan... I wouldn't get my hopes up, unless the Nostalgia bug is really bitting hard for Mech sim fans.

I enjoyed the series. Granted the controls were clunky as hell, and customizing was a bit obtuse, but it was still a fun experience, and one I think even as a niche it is not being filled right now. I think taking what they learned from the souls and bloodborn series to help tackle those problems (perhaps making the mechs a little less clunky to handle and aim with, and going more for the soul's idea of variety in equipment that is not often outright upgrades of other stuff.) Even if unlikely, it has been some years yet, I can hold hope they may revisit the series.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here