that's your interpretation, which is quite different from most people theory (especially that Epic name bro unpleasant dude)
Actually most now agree The Age of Fire is beneficial. I've already explained how the Age of Dark is "natural" for humanity just not the humans that live today. Either way the "Argument from numbers" counter is kinda weak when everything in the expansion speaks contrary to what most once believed.
Heck, even the writer in an interview said it's obscure on purpose. He said he used to read western novels and he didn't understand half the things written, so he had to make asumptions. He tried to recreate that feeling for the game.
Things like Solaire being the firstborn of Gwyn, origin of the gods, the Primordial Serpents, the lore of the kingdoms and of heroes are obscure but the main story is pretty much explained in full now thanks to the expansion.
Because he's important to the plot, otherwise, it can only be described as a plot device, like in Mass effect 2 when everyone goes on a shuttle so the normandy can be invaded
http://youtu.be/sah6gq5o1nQ?t=2m45sYou just admitted the writer made the things obscure on purpose. Clearly this is the case with the giant raven. There doesn't have to be a reason and he's not important to the plot. All he does is save you days/months of travelling by flying you from the undead asylum to Lordran. The fact that this giant raven just appears from nowhere and hands around with Kingseeker Frampt just opens up speculation of the player. That's what was meant.
That's an interpretation, not an actual explanation given.
It is an explanation. The gods wanted to take over. The prologue makes that clear.
Parry is a lame all or nothing mechanic, and is never explained in game.
Yes ennemies can dodge phase through your weapons, the same can happen for the player. I've been backstabbed while rolling, I've rolled through ennemy attacks, and same goes for my ennemies.
Enemies don't roll and PvP is broken which is why I stick only with single-player but broken online mechanics hardly justify calling combat itself broken when it's not.
compare artorias and the guardian to most bosses of the original game. They require tighter timing as they are pretty fast and don't give you that much time to breath. Even with a decent build (though not super optimized one) and knowledge of pattern they pose at least a decent challenge. Most of dark souls bosses don't. They often have a "nuke" attack that can pown you but that's it. I don't remember many bosses as being actually difficult.
O&S are kind of random, they can get a good combo or just handicap each other.
Gwynn is pretty alright I guess. But besides him ? i don't remember any other as being challengin rather than a cheap one trick pony (well Sif had an interesting pattern but he ain't that hard )
They're not supposed to be hard. Even the main director of the game says that Dark Souls is not meant to be a super hard game it's just meant to provide a challenging experience in vain of old traditional RPG's. Once you recognize the pattern of bosses and know their weaknesses they aren't meant to be hard to kill. Some people call Dark Souls a "3D Castlevania" because of the similarities with bosses (i.e recognizing the patterns before taking them out).
In the end that's what Dark Souls was: a solid traditional-action-RPG with well-performed combat mechanics made unique by it's way of telling story (whether it be of the world, history or characters) in an obscure manner and even using the environment itself in doing this as well as containing a fascinating world to explore and a variety of builds for the player to create while freely going through the game in a non-linear fashion.
