I'd like to see a remaster of Demon's and Dark Souls, if you haven't experienced Demon's Souls you really should.

On another note I see claims that Ds3 is a continuation of Ds1 AND 2. Technically it's true, but you have to understand that games are artistic creations like anything else. As such, it's the overall feeling, meaning and significance that's brought to the art that counts, not the abstract "connections" and surface resemblances. When people tried to imitate Lovecraft they usually failed because they just borrowed his Mythos, and sometimes tried to emulate his language, but it wasn't "authentic," to use a slightly hoity-toity word. Ds3 could reference Ds2 all day, it could borrow whole-cloth from the game, but in the end it would bring a totally different significance to it. (Not that they would or will borrow to anything like that degree, but for the sake of argument.)

Ds3 wouldn't borrow in this way from Ds2; but that's more or less what Ds2 did to the first Dark Souls. Ds2 was just an unsatisfactory imitation. It was fanfiction. It didn't have the Soul of Souls. Actually though, in a way they did bring their own meaning to the elements of Souls; the game was about the degradation and decay which inevitably follow when things repeat the same cycle over and over again, pacing the same circle endlessly like Vendrick in his tomb. In a way, you could take this as applying to the game itself - the degraded state of Dark Souls 2 was because no new life was injected, it just did the same thing again and again. It's a curious coincidence of theme and intent that others have also noticed with Ds2, like Cool Ghost in his Ds2 critique.

They say that when an organism doesn't grow and evolve, it doesn't just stagnate, it decays and mutates. This is what happened to Ds2. Now you might say, all the Souls games have been about the horror of being stuck in an endless cycle. True, but Ds2 wasn't self-aware enough to realize that's what it was doing. It didn't see it as being horrible, it just borrowed the theme without evolving it, and unintentionally conveyed the horror that happens when you don't evolve, by refusing to do anything really different with the series. It was an example of the thing it was portraying. Ds3 will be a true evolution of the series. It's already doing things very different, connected to the original, but injecting its own meaning.

Back to the first point, it'll be a technical continuation of both Ds1 and Ds2, but only in the same way that a parasitic growth on the trunk of a tree is technically part of the tree, though not really. If you were being weird, you could say the rest of the tree is a continuation of the growth, as well as the main trunk. And maybe it was partly a symbiotic relationship, maybe the tree took a few things from the parasite as well as vice versa. But usually it's the parasite that benefits more, so eventually if the tree's going to really grow, it'll need to shake it off and grow from its own roots. But what if someone had gotten so used to seeing the parasite, they had started to think it was part of the tree, they liked seeing it there, and they got pissed off when people started saying "that tree needs to get back to its roots and not give any more sap to that parasite. It's for everyone's good, including the parasite, maybe then it can stand on its own two feet and make something of itself!" And this person started yelling, "hell no, that parasite needs to stay there! You don't know how much that tree owes to that parasite, it'd be nothing without it! If that parasite goes I go with it, I don't want to see that tree without it!" And everyone just looks at him funny and says, "whatever, man..." which pisses him off even more. Wouldn't that be a weird attitude to have though? Yes, yes it really would...