• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"I didn't like Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, but I'm excited for Bloodborne"

H

Halabane

Member
Will M said:
I'm hoping Bloodborne has more story stuff presented on the surface. The souls games felt like a lot of the cool backstories were nestled away to the point where you had to read someone's explanation online.
Click to expand...

Make it worth all the work.

Downside to a story in a game that can be brutal is that you tend to not pay attention to it because your more focused on combat. Also for guys like me who aren't that good at it, it may be long stretches before I move the story because I am stuck somewhere.
 
J

jimi_dini

Member
Psycho_Mantis said:
Dark Souls 2 was made by a different team with Miyazaki not directing it as well.
Click to expand...

Why should this matter?

It's a FROM game. Bloodborne is also a FROM game. They betrayed the original fan base once and for me personally that's it. I mean it's fine by me that they look for a larger audience. I wish them luck with that.

Do you really think that those "accessibility" changes were done entirely because that other team decided to do them? And not because managment decided that the game should be more accessible (which could in theory give them a larger audience)? Miyazaki won't be able to do shit when managment demands this or that.

The incompetent level design and so on can be blamed on that other team. However the "accessibility" changes can not.

There is already "regenerating health" in Bloodborne. And they even say that "It replaces the way of having a shield, blocking and attacking". I mean come on. In Dark Souls 1 you didn't get health back by blocking correctly. Or by parrying / riposte. Ways to get health back were extremely limited.

In Bloodborne it's "oh well I got hit, I will just hit back to get my health back". So that's like blocking strikes in Dark Souls and then getting health back for that. I mean what?

Excusing this by just imagining ways that it could work out reminds me exactly when all those changes in Dark Souls 2 were mentioned. "It's way harder when the enemies stop respawning". Yeah, eh no. It wasn't harder. It made the game easier.

Look, those games with prettier and shinier graphics simply require a large audience. If it sells just 1 million, it will be a bomb and that will be it. Focusing on hardcore players can be fine in case your budget doesn't require many people to buy it, but Bloodborne doesn't look like a game, that is made for cheap.
 
N

Nerokis

Member
jimi_dini said:
Dark Souls 2 went against this rule.
That one monster breaking down the wall and most of the time instant killing you? There was no way of knowing that before experiencing it.
Click to expand...

After Dark Souls 2 clicked with me, I went through a significant portion of it 1-shotting boss after boss. There was little to no trial and error to be had. But yes, unsurprisingly, there were a couple moments where DS2 didn't adhere to this "rule."

It's amazing how so much DS2 critique reflects that of a single video, or constitutes "this flaw appears a few times, game is broken" exaggeration.

Anyway, yeah, I suspect the biggest advantage Bloodborne has over previous games for some people is the fact that it hasn't released. I can't imagine most who hated the Souls games did so for such specific, narrow reasons that a few mechanical tweaks and a change in setting will dramatically change their experience. Everything we've seen and heard about Bloodborne points to the basic Souls formula remaining intact, and the same applies to Miyazaki's sensibilities on mechanics and world building.

It's cool Bloodborne has managed to convince some people to give these games another shot, but chances are some of them will be disappointed. Then again, people expecting it to perfectly capture the previous games will probably be disappointed, as well.
 
O

oni-link

Member
ZdkDzk said:
Because Bloodborne is on another level aesthetically.

Because where Demons/Dark were relatively slow games where you sort of "danced" to the enemy's rhythm (or died), Bloodborne looks like a fast paced rushdown game where you get penalized for not taking risks.

I'm not one of those guys, but this would be my answer.
Click to expand...

If you think you're going to be able to run into any encounter and attack, then dodge the enemies attack, and then attack again until you win, throughout the entire game, you will die fast and you will die a lot

It's still going to be an ARPG, the character you play and your play style won't be suitable for using that tactic in every encounter in the game, faster and more offensive or not, if you don't proceed with caution you will almost certainly die a lot, just like with any of the other Souls games
 
J

JudgmentJay

Member
jimi_dini said:
Why should this matter?

It's a FROM game. Bloodborne is also a FROM game. They betrayed the original fan base once and for me personally that's it. I mean it's fine by me that they look for a larger audience. I wish them luck with that.

Do you really think that those "accessibility" changes were done entirely because that other team decided to do them? And not because managment decided that the game should be more accessible (which could in theory give them a larger audience)? Miyazaki won't be able to do shit when managment demands this or that.

The incompetent level design and so on can be blamed on that other team. However the "accessibility" changes can not.

There is already "regenerating health" in Bloodborne. And they even say that "It replaces the way of having a shield, blocking and attacking". I mean come on. In Dark Souls 1 you didn't get health back by blocking correctly. Or by parrying / riposte. Ways to get health back were extremely limited.

In Bloodborne it's "oh well I got hit, I will just hit back to get my health back". So that's like blocking strikes in Dark Souls and then getting health back for that. I mean what?

Excusing this by just imagining ways that it could work out reminds me exactly when all those changes in Dark Souls 2 were mentioned. "It's way harder when the enemies stop respawning". Yeah, eh no. It wasn't harder. It made the game easier.

Look, those games with prettier and shinier graphics simply require a large audience. If it sells just 1 million, it will be a bomb and that will be it. Focusing on hardcore players can be fine in case your budget doesn't require many people to buy it, but Bloodborne doesn't look like a game, that is made for cheap.
Click to expand...

You know Miyazaki is the president of Fromsoft, right?

Plenty of people have said the alpha was just as hard if not harder than previous Souls games even with the health regain mechanic (myself included). I have faith that they'll balance it correctly. Also, Feeling "betrayed" because they made a game slightly easier is pretty ridiculous. It's still an amazing game even if it doesn't compare to the previous 2 entries.
 
M

M0nochromatic

Member
I haven't been keeping up with BloodBorne news, but is there any reason so far to believe the story telling won't be like it always has been? You've always been given the base story upfront with lore and secondary information hidden throughout. I like being able to look at a key I just picked up for a hint on where to go. I would miss the well written item descriptions.

I'm also excited for what I've seen so far, but every gif I see reminds me of how many deaths it took for me to get skilled enough to look good while I played. If you watch a good Artorias fight in Dark Souls with no shield, it looks like a frantic fast paced battle between knights, and it is. It's just usually after that player has been cartwheeled, stingered, blendered, launched, and blown up a couple dozen times first. I just hope the players who hated dying in the souls games know that's still very much going to happen.
 
Bl@de

Bl@de

Member
I think people are going to be very disappointed. When I look at bloodborne, I see an victorian setting souls with fast rolling light armor builds. And that builds demanded way more skill than mages or blocking stuff with shields. I expect bloodborne to be harder. Also because I think we will se more quick enemies like the pursuer etc. And I expect it to be very vague in terms of story ... I mean it's from software. That's what they do best.

And the souls games never had cheapshots. You can anticipate stuff by looking and listening. But you can't turn your brain off like in typical aaa games. Then you'll die. Often.
 
J

jimi_dini

Member
JudgmentJay said:
You know Miyazaki is the president of Fromsoft, right?
Click to expand...

Okay, I actually did not know that.

So if Miyazaki is president, why didn't he do shit about Dark Souls 2 and let them release this turd? Was he on holiday?

Also: Bloodborne isn't published by FROM. It's published by Sony. Which means Sony has some saying in it as well.

Plenty of people have said the alpha was just as hard if not harder than previous Souls games even with the health regain mechanic. I have faith that they'll balance it correctly.
Click to expand...

I watched a preview. The player lost quite a bit of health by getting hit and then got all of it back by simply striking the enemy 3 or 4 times. It looked pretty silly to me. No riposte. No nothing. Simple strikes were enough.

Also, Feeling "betrayed" because they made a game slightly easier is pretty ridiculous. It's still an amazing game even if it doesn't compare to the previous 2 entries.
Click to expand...

slightly easier? The game was simply a broken mess in all sorts of ways. There were so many things wrong with it. Now that I know Miyazaki is president, I actually hold him also responsible for that mess. I thought he had literally nothing to do with it. Funnily that knowledge made the whole Dark Souls 2 situation even worse to me personally.
 
A

ASIS

Member
Quoting myself from another thread
ASIS said:
I want to like the game, yeah I don't care for the art style but everything else is fantastic. The bosses, the feeling of accomplishment, the structure of the world, the secrets, everything.

But what stopped me from playing is the difficulty being so high I feel like it's hampering my progress. In other words, if I do a one hour session I feel like I only got about 15 minutes worth of actual content, if not less. Yeah it does add to the whole "accomplishment" feel but after 5 or 6 sessions I just couldn't pull through.

That's why I want a casual mode :p
Click to expand...

So yeah, I know Bloodborne is going to kick my ass again. But what little I've played in DS and actually progressed made me really appreciate the design. I'm not giving up in this series, I am not!
 
J

JudgmentJay

Member
jimi_dini said:
Okay, I actually did not know that.

So if Miyazaki is president, why didn't he do shit about Dark Souls 2 and let them release this turd? Was he on holiday?
Click to expand...

He was made president after Dark Souls 2 released.

Also, instead of wild speculation, how about you wait and see how the health regain mechanic turns out? I died plenty in the alpha. It was fine.
 
J

Jimmyfenix

Member
JudgmentJay said:
He was made president after Dark Souls 2 released.

Also, instead of wild speculation, how about you wait and see how the health regain mechanic turns out? I died plenty in the alpha. It was fine.
Click to expand...

It seems like jimi_dini is placing blame on Miyazaki when he had no control over it

Also watching a preview and playing it for yourself are very two different things. I saw a guy beat the cleric beast in a preview. I did not come even close to beating him.
 
R

RenegadeXV8

Banned
jimi_dini said:
Okay, I actually did not know that.

So if Miyazaki is president, why didn't he do shit about Dark Souls 2 and let them release this turd? Was he on holiday?

Also: Bloodborne isn't published by FROM. It's published by Sony. Which means Sony has some saying in it as well.



I watched a preview. The player lost quite a bit of health by getting hit and then got all of it back by simply striking the enemy 3 or 4 times. It looked pretty silly to me. No riposte. No nothing. Simple strikes were enough.



slightly easier? The game was simply a broken mess in all sorts of ways. There were so many things wrong with it. Now that I know Miyazaki is president, I actually hold him also responsible for that mess. I thought he had literally nothing to do with it. Funnily that knowledge made the whole Dark Souls 2 situation even worse to me personally.
Click to expand...

Maybe wait for the game to be released before deciding it's an easymode trash game?

I find it weird that you keep trying to convince yourself it's easier, despite everyone who has actually played it stating it's just as hard, if not harder.
 
3

3DShovel

Member
jimi_dini said:
Okay, I actually did not know that.

So if Miyazaki is president, why didn't he do shit about Dark Souls 2 and let them release this turd? Was he on holiday?
Click to expand...

Wow the hyperbole.

Look, it's obvious you don't want to like Bloodborne, so do yourself a favour and stop wiping the sweat off your forehead over it. The whole point of video games is entertainment. If you're not getting any entertainment, move on bro.

No point in criticizing the hard work of developers.
 
S

ShadowSoldier89

Member
I didnt enjoy souls, but looking forward to bloodborne, so I am one of those people. Souls were a very defense oriented games and felt very slow.

Bloodborne looks to up the pace just a bit, and focus more on offense. Im glad its still slower as I'm not looking for DMC out of this, but I found souls just a bit too slow. Coupled with the setting and more interesting weapons, I am definitely looking forward to it.
 
H

Hypron

Member
Sakujou said:
it never clicked for me, and the game is ugly as fuck.
the controls are beyond oblivion, but i would give bloodborne a chance when it hits a lower price.

i like hard games, but this is another way of hard.
i like the "devil may cry"-ish hard, not the "trial and error"-hard, if its not further explained or made out clear in any way.
oh and the style of the game.... ugh
Click to expand...

The DMC games and the Souls game have a very similar approach to difficulty though. They both require you to learn enemy patterns by observing the visual and audio clues these enemies make. You then need to find how to counter those using your own moveset. DMC games just have a larger moveset and are faster paced and Souls game have more weapons and RPG stats.

DMC games on DMD are also quite a bit harder than Souls games.
 
J

jimi_dini

Member
RenegadeXV8 said:
Maybe wait for the game to be released before deciding it's an easymode trash game?
Click to expand...

Maybe others should wait for the game to be released before saying that it's not easier than Dark Souls as well?

I find it weird that you keep trying to convince yourself it's easier, despite everyone who has actually played it stating it's just as hard, if not harder.
Click to expand...

yeOs0vb.gif


http://www.gamrreview.com/preview/90160/dark-souls-ii-hands-on-prepare-to-die-again/
My short time with the game was as brutal and unforgiving as as either of its predecessors. Namco brought a special section of the game specifically built to show off the new features to the conference
Click to expand...

I was unable to complete the demo without dying, unsurprisingly, but I left very satisfied nonetheless. This is the Dark Souls I always want it to be. It's brutal, stylized, and fun. It's made for fans, and not dumbed down in the slightest. If anything, the game is harder than ever. Masochists rejoice
Click to expand...

Marketing horray.
 
G

Giriath_89

Member
jimi_dini said:
I watched a preview. The player lost quite a bit of health by getting hit and then got all of it back by simply striking the enemy 3 or 4 times. It looked pretty silly to me. No riposte. No nothing. Simple strikes were enough.
Click to expand...

I wonder what that enemy was. The standard townsfolk die in 2-3 hits and any other enemy in the demo will hit you back before you can hit it 3-4 times in time to get your health back.

Enemies in general seem to hit harder in BB, and the easiest enemies often come in groups. Harder enemies have a large moveset including very fast combo breakers like headbutts and shoves.

You can only regain health lost from the most recent hit, not multiple hits. So enemies are harder and more often come in groups, you don't have a shield and may have limited healing items -- the regain mechanic seems totally fair, especially considering you will probably play too risky and die a lot before you master exploiting attack timing.

Oh and you can't circle-strafe backstab anymore; to backstab you have to first land a charged attack at an enemy's back to stun them.
 
S

seady

Member
Teh Emo Penguin said:
The Victorian setting and visual style of Bloodborne really clicks with me for some reason. I'm not a fan of medieval-looking stuff.
Click to expand...

Same with me.
Played the demo of Bloodborne and was surprise it has a very different tone, and that's more than enough to attract me.
 
P

Psycho_Mantis

Banned
jimi_dini said:
Why should this matter?

It's a FROM game. Bloodborne is also a FROM game. They betrayed the original fan base once and for me personally that's it. I mean it's fine by me that they look for a larger audience. I wish them luck with that.

Do you really think that those "accessibility" changes were done entirely because that other team decided to do them? And not because managment decided that the game should be more accessible (which could in theory give them a larger audience)? Miyazaki won't be able to do shit when managment demands this or that.

The incompetent level design and so on can be blamed on that other team. However the "accessibility" changes can not.

There is already "regenerating health" in Bloodborne. And they even say that "It replaces the way of having a shield, blocking and attacking". I mean come on. In Dark Souls 1 you didn't get health back by blocking correctly. Or by parrying / riposte. Ways to get health back were extremely limited.

In Bloodborne it's "oh well I got hit, I will just hit back to get my health back". So that's like blocking strikes in Dark Souls and then getting health back for that. I mean what?

Excusing this by just imagining ways that it could work out reminds me exactly when all those changes in Dark Souls 2 were mentioned. "It's way harder when the enemies stop respawning". Yeah, eh no. It wasn't harder. It made the game easier.

Look, those games with prettier and shinier graphics simply require a large audience. If it sells just 1 million, it will be a bomb and that will be it. Focusing on hardcore players can be fine in case your budget doesn't require many people to buy it, but Bloodborne doesn't look like a game, that is made for cheap.
Click to expand...

You don't know what your talking about. Why should the A team be judged on the B teams errors?

Have you even played Bloodborne? Why am I asking, its clear you haven't. You get health back if you attack an enemy within a certain time frame and depending on how many hits you get thats how much health you get. You think it makes the game easier when in reality it can often lead you to your death. Enemies can kill you very quickly in Bloodborne and are in much larger numbers.

From all the impressions people are saying its just like Dark Souls. In fact I can see it being harder for many people simply due to the lack of shields.
 
F

FinalStageBoss

Banned
I'm a fan of the Souls games but I'm looking forward to the change of pace tbh. No more hiding behind a powerful shield. I expect it to be just as punishing to those who don't pay attention to detail though.
 
J

JudgmentJay

Member
jimi_dini said:
Maybe others should wait for the game to be released before saying that it's not easier than Dark Souls as well?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it'll be easier or harder. Nobody knows, but everything we've seen, from the alpha to what Miyazaki has said points to the game being just as hard if not harder than the Souls games (I personally think it'll be much harder for people who have never done a shieldless build in a Souls game). If the final game is the exact same difficultly as the alpha I'll be pleased. We'll just have to wait and see. Or I guess we could just hate it now for absolutely no reason like you're doing.
 
Ghostage

Ghostage

Member
The gameplay is what the Souls series is all about, for me atleast.
I was really hyped for BB until i recently played through Dark Souls II (which i thought was great!) but i feel exhausted on that type of gameplay right now.
However, the setting is so good and makes it a day 1 purchase
 
S

Shredderi

Member
jimi_dini said:
Maybe others should wait for the game to be released before saying that it's not easier than Dark Souls as well?


http://www.gamrreview.com/preview/90160/dark-souls-ii-hands-on-prepare-to-die-again/




Marketing horray.
Click to expand...

I have no stake in this, but why can't the people saying it's not easier be genuine? Do you have something that suggests otherwise or does it just fit into this narrative better? I guess what I'm asking is that have you already made up your mind up about this? Because if you have then you will propably want to reinforce whatever belief you have about the issue and will reject differing opinions. It will be very difficult to have a meaningful conversation about this in that case. Personally I kind of assumed that this would be easier compared to souls games since they talked about being more about the offense but then I see players getting wrecked pretty fast. I'm fine either way. The game just looks really cool and stylish with transformable weapons etc. God I can't wait.
 
Jigolo

Jigolo

Member
I'm kind of on this boat but I'd have to play a demo first. I tried demons souls when it was free on PS+ but I just couldn't handle the slowness. Didn't click with me
 
H

Hypron

Member
jimi_dini said:
Maybe others should wait for the game to be released before saying that it's not easier than Dark Souls as well?
Click to expand...

The demo was NOT easier than the other souls game so going off the info available right now, it's fair to assume the full game won't be either. Of course that might turn out to not be the case but there is supporting evidence for the game being as hard or harder whereas there is none for the game beig easier.
 
A

Atomski

Member
I'm the oposite. Ever since they said it would be less sword and board and more faster combat I've lost a lot of interest. I love sword and board and the DS series does it right. So going away from that bums me out. I'll check it out but I feel more interested in what they wI'll do in DS3.
 
TeddyShardik

TeddyShardik

Banned
I find it weird to read that Bloodborne is so much faster. It doesn't look like that at all to me. o_O It's just rewards being agressive more than the Souls games did. The weapons still seem to have their usual windups. Not knowing anything about the game and just reading these comments one might think they completely changed the combat to something like DmC.

Maybe I'll get it once I play for myself, just going of video impressions here.
 
S

Shredderi

Member
Atomski said:
I'm the oposite. Ever since they said it would be less sword and board and more faster combat I've lost a lot of interest. I love sword and board and the DS series does it right. So going away from that bums me out. I'll check it out but I feel more interested in what they wI'll do in DS3.
Click to expand...

I get that sentiment, but at the same time I'm glad they're doing this BUT under a new IP. That way we will get this and see how it fares but we know that they're going to make a Dark Souls 3 so we'll get the "sword and board" game too! Can you imagine how cool it will look with Dark souls's art direction and locations combined with current-gen visuals! I came here to be hyped about bloodborne but am getting excited for the eventual Dark Souls 3 now xD
 
B

Beats

Member
I'm somewhat looking forward to Bloodborne, but I didn't entirely dislike Demon's or Dark Souls. I really loved the atmosphere, art and music in the games, but I felt like the combat was a bit shallow and the weakest part of the games. The combat at least looks a little bit more interesting in Bloodborne just going by the trailers, but I guess I'll see when it comes out.
 
V

vg260

Member
If I want to play a potentially oppressively challenging game, I have to really like the theme and setting. I didn't for the Souls games, so I had no desire to put in the time and effort. So, put me in the camp with the title quote.
 
P

Pound_lb003

Member
Sakujou said:
it never clicked for me, and the game is ugly as fuck.
the controls are beyond oblivion, but i would give bloodborne a chance when it hits a lower price.

i like hard games, but this is another way of hard.
i like the "devil may cry"-ish hard, not the "trial and error"-hard, if its not further explained or made out clear in any way.
oh and the style of the game.... ugh

hope bloodborne does it better. at least the first few pics do look a bit better.
Click to expand...

Yeh, it's not. Though I can't blame people for thinking it is.

In some games death plays a large role, but in the same way, let's say, Rogue Legacy is not trial and error, neither is Demon's Souls.

They just ask you to be patient, careful and calm. And sometimes quite skillful.

Fletcher said:
Tried many times to like the souls games and I get their appeal, they just never clicked for me. I hope Bloodborne does.

My biggest complaint, and what it seems they hopefully have tweaked with bloodborne, is the pace. It seems they have turned it up a little bit and I like that. Plus, the art direction is so much better. And the grail dungeons appeal to me.

Hopefully it hits at just the right time for me when it will just work for me.
Click to expand...

By grail do you mean 'chalice'? :p

I totally agree though!

Hugstable said:
I'll still never forget the time I YOLO jumped into the Octorock pit in Lost Izalith -____-. Lost all my souls that day, but damn did it teach me to be much more safe around those Octorock assholes. Loved this game for that sense of feeling where I always need to be careful, makes every dungeon and every step in the game be tense, but the fun kind.



I hope they do the classes again. We haven't even seen any skill point or experience stuff also, I'm really hoping they didn't scrap that stuff too.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely sure they will. But yeah, me too. Can't wait to see the different classes, stats and items. Which takes me on to the below:

Jimmyfenix said:
I am just glad that holding a shield and side stepping around an enemy is gone from bloodborne
Click to expand...

Atomski said:
I'm the oposite. Ever since they said it would be less sword and board and more faster combat I've lost a lot of interest. I love sword and board and the DS series does it right. So going away from that bums me out. I'll check it out but I feel more interested in what they wI'll do in DS3.
Click to expand...

We don't actually know, beyond kind of off-hand comments, which could be about the alpha build/previews, that there aren't sword and shield builds.

The enemies have shown shields, we've seen blocking in the leaked trailer, and there's nothing in the control scheme that would prohibit blocking or shield use in the off-hand.
 
T

Tragicomedy

Member
My dislike of the Souls games is precisely why I'm not sold on Bloodborne. It looks like Demon Souls with trench coats and different enemy sprites.

I realize GAF and critics love them some Souls. I tried two of the games and can't get into them. There wasn't an engaging storyline and the combat is too unforgiving. I suck at the combat. My gaming time is too short to sit around frustrated with constant die-and-repeat mechanics to learn the maps and fights. I'm not going to watch videos or read up on a guide to beat them.

I'm not interested in Edge of Tomorrow the Game.
 
Majukun

Majukun

Member
It's a Sony exclusive,many PS owners would play anything ad long is exclusive of the platform...even.knack was million seller...
 
O

oni-link

Member
RenegadeXV8 said:
Actually I think this is an even bigger deal than shields. Magic made most of the bosses significantly easier, and you could cheese a lot of encounters by just running away and spamming spells.
Click to expand...

I'd rather they rebalanced it so that it wasn't easy to be cheap

Its one area I'm concerned about, no shields and no magic is fine and all but it removes choice for the player

In the Souls game you could play without magic and without a shield, but you had choice and you had options, it also adds to the re-playability as after you beat the game with a magic build you could have a really different experience with 100% melee build

If you have to play fast, aggressive and shield less in Bloodborne and that is the only viable way of playing the game, while it still might be great it will lose something
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I just got into Soulsborne games
Opinion
24
1K
KillaJamm replied
LTTP: Dragons Dogma: Dark Arisen - I'm Dragon myself to the Sequel
12
861
Maiden Voyage replied
everybody wants a bloodborne remaster/remake but i dont think it would turn out as good as the original
2 3
115
5K
SSfox replied
What's a choice you made in gaming that altered your entire gaming career moving forward
Social Opinion 2
97
4K
Metalman96 replied
Lords of the Fallen devs say they worry about the amount of soulslikes; think gamers still respond to RPGs like Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Elden Ring
Opinion Game Dev 2
55
4K
PanzerCute replied
Top Bottom