Support NeoGAF

[oni-link]

For the record, I love Demon's Souls and am currently on my first play though of Dark, which I'm also enjoying (Just beat Nito earlier today)

I feel like every second post when people are talking about the Souls games whenever they're brought up in other threads is people saying they didn't like the first few games but they're excited for Bloodborne

If this is you, why?

I'm just kind of curious because while it does look like it's going to change things up a little, it still looks like a Souls game, and if you didn't like the first 3 then chances are you won't like Bloodborne

Is it just the hype? The visuals and the setting? Are any of those 3 things enough to override the fact you didn't like the first games?

 

[benny_a]

I'm barely excited and it's because of the trench coats. I've been wanting a game where you play a Witch Hunter since 2010 (according to posts on GAF I traced back) so the aesthetics of the setting are interesting.

For background I played Demon's Souls in 2009 and thought it was okay.

 

[Teh Emo Penguin]

The Victorian setting and visual style of Bloodborne really clicks with me for some reason. I'm not a fan of medieval-looking stuff.

 

[Aeriscloud]

Although I am not one of these people you are asking for, I could see some being more interested in the setting, or the weapon types?


I myself am excited for it because of previous From Software games.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I'm not sure I'll like it, but it looks more fun than Demon/Dark Souls to me because of how action-oriented and aggressive the combat is.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

I think it's because the atmosphere of the Souls games was really generic. It had really subjectively poor sense of setting. People still liked it, but it was not a world to get lost in. I never felt like I was present in the experience. Also the punishingly hard gameplay, while appealing, can also be extremely unappealing depending on the frame of mind of the player. If I'm exhausted after work or only have two free hours, I don't want to spend it failing.

Bloodborne looks like it fixes that.

EDIT: Since I am being quoted repeatedly, I'm adding here that, like other posters express beyond this post, the medieval genre is inherently generic and is unappealing for reasons unrelated to the Souls games specifically. Please stop quoting this post out of this context.

The setting is not appealing to players like us.

Post #36

 

[Will M]

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.

 

[Magwik]

The combat looks more refined, the pacing and movement seems much improved, the setting is interesting, and just other small things that make it more attracting than the Souls games

 

[EvilKatarn]

Those people are gonna get burned so hard. It's gonna be hilarious.

 

[theechrisfox]

Those people are gonna get burned so hard. It's gonna be hilarious.

Quite something here.

 

[Bishop89]

It doesn't seem as Rpg'ish(stat allocation is a huge turnoff for me) , and the combat doesn't look like it's got as much depth (no shields). And looks faster.

For the record I've only beaten the first MAIN boss in demons and haven't touched the other games

EDIT: not saying I don't like demons souls, just haven't been able to finish it due to the rpg nature of it with how much it punishes you. Hate doing a SHIT TONNE OF work just to do it all again if I die.

 

[IKizzLE]

Never was interested in Demon and Dark Souls, can't wait for Bloodborne.
No particular reason....just from videos, the game never clicked for me.
Something about Bloodborne's aesthetics and quicker combat makes it more appealing.
And creature design really shines when you can make the graphics better.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I've seen people mention that they don't like how slow the Souls games are while Bloodborne seems to be pushing speed. It's obviously not going to be Bayonetta or DMC, but Miyazaki has said that the combat is built around being aggressive.

 

[Cream]

I'm extremely bored by medieval fantasy, but victorian era horror excites me, I like the idea of the guns, and it's supposed to be faster.

I seriously hated both Demon Souls and Dark Souls, but I am excited for Bloodborne all the same.

 

[Creaking]

I beat Demons Souls, and while I wasn't completely enamored with it by the end, I did like it a fair bit (not enough to play through again though). Never got around to Dark Souls 1 or 2. That said, after playing Bloodborne's Alpha, it does have my interest. I really like that it encourages more aggressive playstyles with it's health recovery system and improved dodging. The mechanics are very well put together. The only thing I didn't enjoy one bit was the boss at the end, which had a terrible camera and was just no fun to fight. I got to it 10+ times and never beat it. Tried a bunch of different tactics and it always felt like I was doing something wrong.

 

[sn00zer]

Didnt like how repetitive Dark Souls was, and I expect this to be no different. But, as with DS, the art direction makes me love exploring the games.....until of course I get stuck again.

 

[oni-link]

I think it's because the atmosphere of the Souls games was really generic. It had really poor atmosphere. People still liked it, but it was not a world to get lost in. I never felt like I was present in the experience. Also the punishingly hard gameplay, while appealing, can also be extremely unappealing depending on the frame of mind of the player. If I'm exhausted after work or only have two free hours, I don't want to spend it failing.

Bloodborne looks like it fixes that.

I really strongly disagree with that, the atmosphere is one of the best things about the game, it's so bleak and oppressive and everything is out to kill you, the levels are designed to feel like they're out to get you, but they remain fair (for the most part)

And while not having amazing graphics the art design and monster design more than make up for it and set it head and shoulders above anything based more on Tolkien or D&D fantasy

 

[Silky]

How can you be excited for a game in which you didn't like the previous installments prior to that game

 

[sn00zer]

I think it's because the atmosphere of the Souls games was really generic. It had really poor atmosphere. People still liked it, but it was not a world to get lost in. I never felt like I was present in the experience. Also the punishingly hard gameplay, while appealing, can also be extremely unappealing depending on the frame of mind of the player. If I'm exhausted after work or only have two free hours, I don't want to spend it failing.

Bloodborne looks like it fixes that.

Strongly disagree with this one. Easily trumps just about any "medieval western fantasy games" setting. I couldnt play Elder Scrolls as I found the setting too generic, but Dark Souls was interesting as hell. Its basically post apocalypse medieval fantasy.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

I really strongly disagree with that, the atmosphere is one of the best things about the game, it's so bleak and oppressive and everything is out to kill you, the levels are designed to feel like they're out to get you, but they remain fair (for the most part)

And while not having amazing graphics the art design and monster design more than make up for it and set it head and shoulders above anything based more on Tolkien or D&D fantasy

I suppose it would be more correct of me to say "setting" over "atmosphere," although I don't feel strongly about it like you do. I agree it feels oppressive.

Edit: For sn00zer, too.

And I agree more with the poster after me. The medieval setting just doesn't appeal to us. This might be from over exposure to the medieval genre and isn't Souls's fault, necessarily.

 

[Toparaman]

Because the Souls setting and art direction look like the typical dark-fantasy you see in a lot of other games. I would never know the Souls games are anything special just from looking at them.

Bloodborne looks more unique, and intrigues me regardless of who is making it.

Proceed to flame me.

Edit: Oops, I should probably mention that I don't dislike the Souls games. I haven't even played them. Just not interested in them as much as BB.

 

[Aeriscloud]

I think it's because the atmosphere of the Souls games was really generic. It had really poor atmosphere.

Did we play the same game? I do not agree at all.

 

[Cyrano]

Strongly disagree with this one. Easily trumps just about any "medieval western fantasy games" setting. I couldnt play Elder Scrolls as I found the setting too generic, but Dark Souls was interesting as hell. Its basically post apocalypse medieval fantasy.

Skyrim/Oblivion I agree with you. Morrowind is just about the most original western fantasy RPG ever conceived.

Anyway, Bloodborne looks alright.

 

[oni-link]

I've seen people mention that they don't like how slow the Souls games are while Bloodborne seems to be pushing speed. It's obviously not going to be Bayonetta or DMC, but Miyazaki has said that the combat is built around being aggressive.

That might be more appealing but I imagine a Souls game with faster enemies and no shield will probably be quite difficult

 

[Cream]

If a game as a medieval fantasy setting, that automatically makes me less attracted to it.

It has to bring something else to the table that I really enjoy to make me even care or want to play it. Fire Emblem brought the characters and waifus. Dragon's Dogma brought the amazing combat.

Demon Souls and Dark Souls unfortunately did not bring me anything.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

having played the alpha I think some people who didn't like the earlier games and are expecting a radical departure in terms of gameplay are going to be rather dissappointed.

I think it's because the atmosphere of the Souls games was really generic. It had really poor atmosphere. People still liked it, but it was not a world to get lost in. I never felt like I was present in the experience. Also the punishingly hard gameplay, while appealing, can also be extremely unappealing depending on the frame of mind of the player. If I'm exhausted after work or only have two free hours, I don't want to spend it failing.

Bloodborne looks like it fixes that.

it's no easier.

 

[texhnolyze]

How can you be excited for a game in which you didn't like the previous installments prior to that game

It's hype.

 

[Juanfp]

I am pretty sure that most of the people who said that, will be pretty dissapointed with the game.
Although the game dont have "souls" in the name it looks that it have the same "soul".

 

[toddhunter]

It is win/win. Personally I'm a little less excited for Bloodborne since it is clearly more of an action focused title, rather then the slower and methodical pace of the souls games.

The win/win is because we didn't have to mess up the souls games to potentially attract and please a new audience. This is a pleasing approach given what other publishes like EA do to their series.

 

[KCroxtonJr]

I think it's because the atmosphere of the Souls games was really generic. It had really poor atmosphere.

 

[komorebi]

Those people are gonna get burned so hard. It's gonna be hilarious.

Pretty much. Its changed up a bit but its basically a Souls game sans the Souls.

I think it's because the atmosphere of the Souls games was really generic. It had really poor atmosphere.

Couldn't disagree more. Maybe DS2 but Demon's and Dark 1 were oozing atmosphere from beginning to end.

 

[Cyrano]

If a game as a medieval fantasy setting, that automatically makes me less attracted to it.

It has to bring something else to the table that I really enjoy to make me even care or want to play it. Fire Emblem brought the characters and waifus. Dragon's Dogma brought the amazing combat.

Demon Souls and Dark Souls unfortunately did not bring me anything.

Dragon's Dogma probably had some of the most interesting combat of any RPG I've ever played. It's just kinda sad the game doesn't really seem to have enough traction with Capcom for them to pursue.

 

[v1lla21]

Never was interested in Demon and Dark Souls, can't wait for Bloodborne.
No particular reason....just from videos, the game never clicked for me.
Something about Bloodborne's aesthetics and quicker combat makes it more appealing.
And creature design really shines when you can make the graphics better.

This. I didn't care for demon nor dark souls, it just looked ugly and didn't appeal to me. The setting in bloodborne and cool creatures draws me in.

 

[3DShovel]

I think it's because the atmosphere of the Souls games was really generic. It had really poor atmosphere. People still liked it, but it was not a world to get lost in. I never felt like I was present in the experience. Also the punishingly hard gameplay, while appealing, can also be extremely unappealing depending on the frame of mind of the player. If I'm exhausted after work or only have two free hours, I don't want to spend it failing.

Bloodborne looks like it fixes that.

Uhh, lol?

 

[SolidSnakex]

That might be more appealing but I imagine a Souls game with faster enemies and no shield will probably be quite difficult

I agree there. During TGS there were several playthroughs where the player got surrounded and demolished within seconds. So the game definitely isn't easier just because it's faster. Obviously if their issue was difficulty, then Bloodborne isn't going to do anything to change that. But if it was really just about speed, then it's doing things to address that.

 

[Molemitts]

I have a feeling most of these people are going to be just as disappointed as they were with Demon's and/or Dark Souls. It's all hype. It doesn't matter if you like the setting better, if the key returning mechanics and themes aren't to your taste. (Dark Souls has a brilliant setting IMO, it isn't generic fantasy by any means)

 

[jon bones]

Victorian setting, a slightly higher emphasis on offense & 4 player mp.

I mean I liked DS, but I'm much more excited for BB.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Did we play the same game? I do not agree at all.

Strongly disagree with this one. Easily trumps just about any "medieval western fantasy games" setting. I couldnt play Elder Scrolls as I found the setting too generic, but Dark Souls was interesting as hell. Its basically post apocalypse medieval fantasy.

I really strongly disagree with that, the atmosphere is one of the best things about the game, it's so bleak and oppressive and everything is out to kill you, the levels are designed to feel like they're out to get you, but they remain fair (for the most part)

And while not having amazing graphics the art design and monster design more than make up for it and set it head and shoulders above anything based more on Tolkien or D&D fantasy

Couldn't disagree more. Maybe DS2 but Demon's and Dark 1 were oozing atmosphere from beginning to end.

Again, as I edited into the post you're quoting, medieval scenarios feel overdone in general. The three generic scenarios across all forms of media are space, western, and medieval. There's a reason that all three have been largely abandoned by Hollywood on any normal basis. Scifi is only recently making a resurgence and not very successfully. These genres need to try extra hard to resonate with people who have been desensitized to their qualities.

The setting of the Souls games, for players like me, is "generic medieval." That's a trapping of the genre, not the game.

 

[sublimit]

I feel like every second post when people are talking about the Souls games whenever they're brought up in other threads is people saying they didn't like the first few games but they're excited for Bloodborne

Sorry but it's just your impression.The ones who say " "I didn't like Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, but I'm excited for Bloodborne" are just a tiny vocal minority.

The vast majority who is interested in Bloodborne (at least here on GAF) loves all Souls games to various degrees.

 

[Son Of D]

Doesn't Bloodborne have more of an offensive focus as opposed to the defensive focus that the Souls games have? If that's the case I could see why some people would be more interested in Bloodborne from a gameplay perspective.

 

[David___]

If this is you, why?

Mostly because the game is being made/ balanced with aggressiveness in mind. I know you can be aggressive in DeS/DS but it always felt to me it favored staying back/ turtleing with a shield more.

 

[Death Penalty]

The combat looks a lot faster. The thing that killed Demon's Souls and Dark Souls for me was how deliberate and plodding the combat was. Made it clunky and unsatisfying, not to mention just a bit too easy if you care enough to pay attention to attack patterns. Tweaking the battle system to be faster paced is exactly the medicine the games need to appeal to me. That said, if it isn't as changed as some of the gameplay makes it look then I likely will just pass on this entry. It won't be day one for me, for sure, as there are other clearly unresolved issues I have with Souls still present in Bloodborne.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

Doesn't Bloodborne have more of an offensive focus as opposed to the defensive focus that the Souls games have? If that's the case I could see why some people would be more interested in Bloodborne from a gameplay perspective.

No shields in bloodborne

 

[Stereogatari]

I like the Souls games but I never gave them a good go, just like the first hour of each. The concept is great but I've never had the patience. There definitely will be a day where I'll probably get my grips with one, perhaps it'll be with Bloodborne.

Why am I excited despite not playing much of the Souls games?

*PS4 Exclusive
*Japanese developer
*RPG

 

[Neiteio]

People who played the alpha said Bloodborne is a lot harder than the Souls series. Hope the newcomers know what they're getting into! (And stick with it -- it'll be worth it)

 

[papercan55]

For the record, I love Demon's Souls and am currently on my first play though of Dark, which I'm also enjoying (Just beat Nito earlier today)

I feel like every second post when people are talking about the Souls games whenever they're brought up in other threads is people saying they didn't like the first few games but they're excited for Bloodborne

If this is you, why?

I'm just kind of curious because while it does look like it's going to change things up a little, it still looks like a Souls game, and if you didn't like the first 3 then chances are you won't like Bloodborne

Is it just the hype? The visuals and the setting? Are any of those 3 things enough to override the fact you didn't like the first games?

it's the setting and main character for me...
sad as it sounds i cannot stand anything with knights, castles and the usual medieval western fantasy games with shields, swords magic potions e.t.c

the souls games have always interested me with such amazing enemies/bosses but i just cannot bring myself to play through a game as a knight and wander around castles and typical western rpg dungeons and settings, even if the bosses look great.
bloodborne looks a little more my style so i'm going to jump in and give it a try, i just hope i can pick that character with the plague mask and feathered coat and not have to be the one with the long black trenchcoat and fedora...

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I didn't really stick with Demon's Souls and haven't played either Dark Souls game, but for me, Bloodborne's style and setting is just infinitely more interesting. It also seems quite a bit speedier, as well, which was probably my biggest qualm with Demon's Souls.

 

[Super Stardust]

I'm barely excited and it's because of the trench coats. I've been wanting a game where you play a Witch Hunter since 2010 (according to posts on GAF I traced back) so the aesthetics of the setting are interesting.

For background I played Demon's Souls in 2009 and thought it was okay.

Have you played any of the witcher games?

 

[GuitarAtomik]

As someone who falls in this camp it's pretty simple. Two things really:

1] I find the combat of the Souls series interesting. I'm not completely in to it, but I like the idea of more deliberate combat. The fact that Bloodborne's seems to be a little faster and closer to say a character action game makes me even more interested.

2] The main reason I can't get in to the Souls series is the obtuseness and deliberate opaqueness of just about every facet of the game. I'm also not a fan of having to re-traverse areas and fight the same enemies in the same spots over and over because of sometimes bullshit kills that you have no way of knowing about until they kill you. For what I understand, Bloodborne is a lot more straightforward and mostly eliminates this structure. Whether or not I decide on buying the game is pretty much down to how true that is.

 

[oni-link]

I agree there. During TGS there were several playthroughs where the player got surrounded and demolished within seconds. So the game definitely isn't easier just because it's faster. Obviously if their issue was difficulty, then Bloodborne isn't going to do anything to change that. But if it was really just about speed, then it's doing things to address that.

Yeah my point in making the thread was more about those who played and didn't like the Souls games, and yet are still excited for Bloodborne

Or those who read about the Souls games are were turned off by it being hard, or long, or slow, and deciding to skip them, but are still excited for Bloodborne

The setting is nice and all, but if you didn't like dying and going back to the start of the level in the older Souls games, then doing so in a Victorian setting and with faster enemies killing you will be just as frustrating

The Souls gameplay is so strong and has such dedicated fans I can't see From straying too far from the formula, especially after DS2 was generally considered worse than the first Dark Souls, if Bloodborne is another step back then a lot of people may decide to skip their next game

I just think if Dark Souls doesn't appeal to you from a gameplay perspective, or you disliked it, then you probably won't like Bloodborne that much