Dark Souls 3 of 3
In my efforts to finish this part of this serialized essay, I have written several different beginnings. I am now trying to edit them together. This seems appropriate for Dark Souls 3 which feels like a game that is stitched together from a planned trilogy.
(For some of the background for this essay, I’m drawing on the great video essay by Dondon RV which goes over the makings of “Dark Souls 2” and “Dark Souls 3”. Link here)
“Dark Souls 3” was in development at a difficult time for Fromsoft. While “Bloodborne” had catapulted the studio into the mainstream, “Dark Souls 2” had been regarded by a lot of fans and critics as a failure. Miyazaki had been too busy to work on “Dark Souls 2” because he was occupied with Bloodborne. He had seen the franchise which was deeply personal to him get transferred to an inexperienced game developer and bungled until Yui Tanimura stepped in. It was up to Tanimura and make something salvageable out of Dark Souls 2.
So, it seems bizarre than “Dark Souls 3” was again not initially given to Miyazaki and that again the project was given to an inexperienced developer. It would seem Fromsoftware and Bandai Namco didn’t learn much from their mismanagement of the IP. And Natoshi Zin. the then president of Fromsoftware eventually asked Miyazaki to step in and rescue the project just as Tanimura rescued “Dark Souls 2”
In early statements, Miyazaki had described the third entry as a turning point in the franchise. Was Bandai Namco the reason for this? Obviously, it would have made sense for Fromsoftware to continue churning out Dark Souls games in perpetuity as it had been the most successful project the studio had done up to that point.
It’s telling that Miyazaki, after becoming president of Fromsoftware, said that “Dark Souls 3” would be the last in the series. The runaway success of “Bloodborne” had made Miyazaki a star, and it made sense to make him president of Fromsoftware. But it’s also clear that Miyazaki chose to end the series once he had the power to do so.
We must think of Miyazaki’s decision to end the Dark Souls series as a brave one given that it might’ve seemed foolish at the time. Miyazaki was becoming respected but “Dark Souls” was the signature series of Fromsoftware. Why would Miyazaki end it before the third game was even out?
In light of the success of both “Sekiro” and “Elden Ring”, it’s clear that this was the correct decision. “Elden Ring” draws a lot on “Dark Souls 3” in terms of animations and characters, but it is still a leap forward. This was entirely different than what Fromsoft had done before.
Instead of staying in the safe but niche territory of Dark Souls, Fromsoftware broke through to the mainstream and maybe made the last great open world game.
By ending the series, Miyazaki took creative ownership of it. “Dark Souls 3” would not become a yearly franchise farmed out to smaller directors. It was Miyazaki’s series. One way to think of the game’s story is as a defense of ending the series to take creative risks.
This was my first attempt at ending the piece but then I remembered the excellent Jacob Geller essay that helped me rethink my relationship with the game, Geller’s video essay which can be viewed here reexamines the game emotionally examining it in the light of the grumpy masterpiece directed by Charles Kaufman ; “I’m thinking of ending things”.
This also made me nervous as I took a break between the 2nd and 3rd part of this essay. Had I inadvertently plagiarized Geller? I was planning to write about how Dark Souls 3 was Miyazaki’s statement to his corporate paymasters at Bandai Namco that the series needed to end with some dignity. But no, this isn’t really mentioned in the essay. But nevertheless, I do think my reconsideration of the work was informed by Geller’s take.
Personally, I think I was also ready to hear a defense of “Dark Souls 3” as it’s a game I’ve really enjoyed playing again and again. And while I still see its flaws, I’m more inclined to think of it positively.
At the same time, I don’t think the Geller piece is entirely correct in its defense of the game. Geller’s essay is a wonderful mood piece that captures both the somberness of Dark Souls 3 and Kaufman’s film. But it is ultimately too wedded to Kaufmann’s existential bleakness to capture the optimism that is a part of the “good” ending of Dark Souls 3.
Part of the ending of “Demon’s Souls” is when you slay True King Allant who has been turned by the god into a horrible monstrosity. When you kill him, he says “You fool, don’t you realize none of us want to go on?”. By killing him, you’re condemning humanity to continue in the bleak world that you’ve played in for much of the game.
Dark Souls 3 is a step back from that kind of bleakness, but not without taking a sober look at the dying world. The position of the game is ultimately that things must die for new things to be born.
The fire is a hegemonic force, artificially keeping alive a feudal society that is exhausted and mindless. By letting the firekeeper put out the flame, it ends the hegemony, new tiny flames grow across the darkness allowing a new system to grow. As the firekeeper says:
“Ashen one, forgive me if this soundeth strange. The eyes show a world without fire, a vast stretch of darkness. But 'tis different to what is seen when stripped of vision. In the far distance, I sense the presence of tiny flames. Like precious embers, left to us by past Lords, linkers of the fire. Could this be what draws me to this strangely enticing darkness?"
But Dark Souls 3 makes you also sit in this moment of dying. The hesitation in the Firekeeper’s voice; “Ashen one, hearest my voice still?” is heard before the game rolls credits. She too is stricken with the terror of annihilation even though she knows it is the right thing to do.
Dark Souls 3 manages to be great art despite its many weaknesses because it puts forward something radical but also makes you feel the sublime terror.
Even though “Dark Souls 3” fully accepts the weight of dying, it is not the trollish nihilism of Kaufman’s film, where there is little hope. In “I’m Thinking of Ending Things”, the increasingly confused narrator spins out in hubristic attempts to create meaning out of his wasted life and ultimately fails. In contrast, “Dark Souls 3” has an optimism that the something better is going to come out of the end of the old order.
While “Dark Souls 3” is still an existential game in a lot of ways, but in a less grim way than the troubled “Dark Souls 2”. “Dark Souls 2” put its existential leanings on its sleeve with the Firekeepers immediately mocking you as you came into the door of their hut. Within 15 minutes of starting the game, you would find the NPC Saulden, who says “being alive, that’s the real curse right there.”
“Dark Souls 3” is an existentialism that struggles with each character's purpose. Characters each have a purpose, and this is the one thing that keeps them from hollowing. Your character’s actions help them achieve that purpose or leave them bereft of it. But once they reach that purpose they still have to choose to die.
Admittedly the only NPC whose story touches me is that of Greirat, who is pathetically devoted to you and trying to prove he can still be of some use. Although the quest revolves around some typically weird Fromsoft turning points, you can keep Greirat alive until Lothric castle. Then he dies doing what he loves, stealing things from monsters.
Irina of Carim has some moving moments too, finding her in her cell you reach out and touch her and still the “little creatures who nibble and bite”. Irina despite wanting to be a firekeeper is drawn to the darkness and you can choose to deepen that affinity, which gives you more power but drives her insane. But this is her more interesting arc as is often the case in Fromsoft games that enabling characters to destroy themselves ends up with a more satisfying story.
The crestfallen character Hawkwood has always been something of a misfire for me, struggling with his cowardice until he toughens up and abandons his shield. There’s no real clear axis for his change of attitude and then after he toughens up, he shows up at Archdragon Peak attempting to claim the dragon stone. This eventually sets up a meaningless confrontation with the player as to who is “the true dragon”. But still Hawkwood eventually finds his purpose.
So, while the NPC questlines can be criticized for mostly lacking depth, particularly Cirrus who is barely in the game, they contribute to our feeling that Dark Souls 3 is about the difficulty of ending something which has found its purpose.
Ending things purposefully is scarier than letting them end without one. The acknowledgement that a thing is ending is more frightening, it involves admitting that something is coming to a close. This could be because of a taking accountability, admitting what you personally did to contribute to the end of something. But if not that, the conscious staring into the darkness of choosing to end something requires a lot of courage.
It’s this courage that the character of Prince Lorian embodies in the game. In a fantastic performance by Harry Lister Smith (who also voiced Gwendolyn), he excoriates the main character for playing along with the doomed quest to relink the fire.
“Oh, dear, another dogged contender. Welcome, Unkindled One, purloiner of Cinders. Mind you, the mantle of Lord interests me none. The fire linking curse, the legacy of lords, let it all fade into nothing.”
Lorian has realized the folly of the artificial extension of the fire and hence his abdication of his duty. His refusal to link the fire is not from being unwilling to let go of his power like Aldrich, it is a conscious choice to let the fire die out. In a classic Fromsoftware twist, the point when you kill the twin princes is when you realize the futility and cruelty of your mission.
Another commonly iterated theme of Fromsoftware games is a strange echo of your hub area, abandoned and desolate. This first happened in “Bloodborne” where you find the abandoned workshop after a long platforming section. “Dark Souls 3” and “Elden Ring” both repeat this same twist, but I think the Abandoned Graves section of the game with its pure abyssal blackness is one of the creepiest versions of this particular obsession of Miyazaki's.
This is entirely missable content, being behind an optional boss. The tortured Oceiros who acts as an echo to Seeth the scaleless, whose pursuit of forbidden knowledge has driven him insane. Beyond an illusory wall, you discover the entrance to the Abandoned Graves, an echo of the tutorial area but entirely empty of light and life.
After defeating a much harder version of the tutorial boss who you faced as a much weaker shell of himself, you enter Firelink shrine without any of the familar NPCs. Only there is a darker echo of the shrine handmaid, who speaks to you in the mocking tones of the Dark Souls 2 firekeepers;
“Well, fancy that. A lost lamb wandereth in, with nary a peep from the bell.
To skirt the curse's grasp....tarry not for long.Tis dark for now, and not a soul stirs. But remember, fires are known to fade in quiet.Or perhaps thou'rt captive already.Like the poor girl”
Perhaps “the poor girl” is in reference to the firekeeper, you find eyes of another firekeeper hidden within the darkened firelink shrine. By giving them to the Firekeeper in your world, she becomes twisted with the knowledge of the world where fire has never existed.
Ludleth of Cortland, the mysterious figure who has created your mission, explains partially explains the darkened world to you after you return to him.
“The eyes show a world destitute of fire, a barren plane of endless darkness. A place born of betrayal. So I will'd myself Lord, to link the fire, to paint a new vision. What is thine intent?"
Whether Ludleth is from an alternate reality or the reality you exist in is dreamt up by him, is hard to say but the fragments are intriguing in the best way. Ultimately “Dark Souls 3” is a game made up of fragments, it’s unsatisfying in that way but its unfinished pieces are more interesting than a lot of more realized worlds.
Much like “Dark Souls 2”, we can fault “Dark Souls 3” for being an unfinished mess put together from three seperate games. But I think in both cases, this is ultimately not taking the work on its own terms. Both games present a confused fragmentary world, the one in “Dark Souls 3” is on the verge of completely coming apart and might be ended by the player character.
The game successfully portrays this and while it might fall short of being an authentic masterpiece, “Dark Souls 3” is also more than a technical leap on the way to “Elden Ring”, it’s an attempt to end a series on its creators terms rather than have it become an empty franchise. And for this reason, as well as the world it presents, we should celebrate it.