Dark Souls III - better than Bloodborne?

Everything looks the same you mean. Almost every environment has the same muted blue, grey, or brown tint to it. All the landscapes and architecture has a samey feeling as well. You end up in wildly different environments in DS and D2II. It felt like a grand adventure as a result. The locations you travel through at the beginning and end of BB just feel similar. The sense of accomplishment just isn't there.

I haven't seen a lot of environment variety with Dark Soul 3 either, but I haven't been watching a lot of footage to be honest. It could be an issue with the new engine they're using.

Which still wouldn't make that or its idiotic hit detection less lame. Bloodborne adds unnecessary tedium, no disagreement, but that shit has been patched to be a non-issue. So the blood vial complaint is a bit dated sunshine.

The environments in Bloodborne have far more going on in terms of selling atmosphere and setting though, the moment to moment level design in Dark Souls 2 is quite poor. Both visually in terms of establishing a setting as it's completely disjointed unlike Dark Souls 1, and pure combat design as it's just fucking lazy about turning everything into tedious slogs of mobs between you and boss fights. All meant to sell the whole franchise mantra of "challenge", except Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne are fair, until they do gimmicky levels (which yes, historically suck sans an exception or two). Dark Souls 2's moment to moment level design is abysmal because it routinely relies on the "throw more dudes" to the point where you don't even pull people 1 v 1, the way you do in other souls games, you're just dealing with groups, in a game where the combat system isn't as well suited to groups.

And because of that when the previous 2 games use groups, they have an actual sense of pace and spike, Dark Souls 2? Nah, no rhythm. Bloodborne in contrast is better suited for dealing with mobs, because of the nature of that dodge.

Dark Souls 2 gets shat on, because you can't patch out the things wrong with Dark Souls 2, you feel on need to redo the entire philosophy behind how that game was made.

How has it been patched? I saw a big thread on Neogaf about this issue just a few days ago, so it's still a major issue. They have lessened the tedium, but it's still a core design flaw, one they can't just simply strip out.

All I know is that I had a lot of fun with Dark Souls 2. I'm not denying any of its flaws. It's definitely a more misguided game compared to Bloodborne. However, a lot of things in BB just simply rubbed me the wrong way. As a game, BB is much more consistent experience overall, but I simply found it dull. Even if it's erratic, the journey to places like Drangaliac Castle and Dragon's Aerie felt rewarding. Getting to places like the Nightmare Frontier and the Unseen Villiage were not. These areas look almost exactly the same as the areas you start the game in. Dark Souls 2 had charm. Bloodborne only pushed me away the more I played it. I never felt immersed in its world like the previous souls games.

literally cannot comprehend your argument about bloodborne's areas feeling too "repetitive" when dark souls 2 uses the same fucking textures and assets every few seconds. the art team tries to mix things up by putting a fucking volcano on the tip of a mountain but they still fail to create environments that are expansive and "lived-in." even demon's souls has areas that are more majestic and grand than dark souls 2. i guess i can see where you're coming from with the partiality towards diverse areas, but you can't fault bloodborne for sticking with a distinct theme and running with it the entire way. it's not a fantasy game like the souls series.

and blood vials were "patched" because the storage cap on them and bullets were raised to 999. yes, you can find yourself running out of them early in the game (if you die a lot), but they're still easy to farm and really the best use of extra echoes. by the middle of the game there's no way you can run out of vials. it's a much, much better system than grass in demon's souls (which made the beginning of the game painful and the end of the game a joke) but i agree that estus in dark souls 1 is still the best healing system out of any souls game.

But that's what I want in a Souls game, some actually diversity. I seriously cannot remember half the locations in BB. Again, pretty much everything in that game has the same color palette and similar architecture. Sure, it creates a consistent theme, but it gets old in a 50 hour experience.

Not sure how that fixes the problem then. It doesn't change the fact that you are forced to grind for more blood vials when you run out. Sure, you don't have to do it as much in the late game, but it's still a significant problem when you first play through the game. Even if farming is a small part of the game, it serves as a total mood killer and fucks with the pacing. I died a lot in Demon Soul's, but I was never forced into grinding. That game also came out like seven years ago, so comparing it to Bloodborne exemplifies my point. BB should be vastly beyond the idea of limited stock healing items by now.

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/dark-souls-3-review/1900-6416397/

8 from GameSpot, lowest score for a Souls game yet

9.5 from IGN

Apparently not, not on Gamespot, not on Metacritic

It has to be better than Bloodborne. Bloodborne was a niche game with awful level design, terrible mechanics and completely broken frame pacing.

Nope.

9.0>8.0

PS4 wins again.

@Xdrone: It has to be better than Bloodborne. Bloodborne was a niche game with awful level design, terrible mechanics and completely broken frame pacing"

What in the actual **** game are you describing?

if GS scored their games by 0.1, i can assure you it wouldn't be anywhere close to an 8. An ~8.7/10 is what i'd imagine GS score to be if the scale wasn't as messed up as it currently is. 1.0 increments suck.

I really hope so. Bloodborne was better than 98 percent of games alongside demon and dark souls 1 (not 2) but BB was a little too streamlined for my taste

That's either Nya's "let it all hang out" alt, or a terrible fakeboy. I'm leaning towards the latter.

You aren't getting Dark Souls II. Yes, its more disjointed than its predecessor, however, it makes up for it by its environment being far more unique and its desolate open design plays to its advantage. The first Souls game was very cramped compared to the environments of the sequel. Hell, even the Gutter makes Blighttown feel cramped.

And no, DS2 is by far the most fair of the souls games, with DS3 being second. Why? Because it relies less on "gotcha" and more on more reasonable uses of the level design. It is the first game that has the gimmicks, especially the second half, and the third game brings back some of these annoyances (such as the swamp). The only true gimmicks I see in the sequel are the statues in the Gulch/Shulva path as well as the completely optional Shaded Woods ghost forest. And please, just "git gud". Groups of Tier 1's and 2's (if I tier Souls enemies 1-5 as ankle biters, troopers, elites, super elites, and bosses) are handled easily, which DS2 does throw at you. However, DS1's enemy design is uninspired when it comes to tier 1 and 2 enemies, and when it did make good use for them, they also attacked in groups, where they couldn't be baited into 1v1 situations. The combat system isn't supposed to be well suited for groups, and thats realistic. The key to combating groups is to kill each member as fast as possible or use the environment (for example, the gunpowder to take out the swordsman swarm in the Lost Bastille). But DS2 works because when there are group attacks, its Tier 1's and 2's, enemies that are killed in 1 or 2 hits, and if you pull multiple Tier 3's, you're dead.

And Dark Souls 1 has very little sense of pace and rhythm, especially second half areas. The sequel has far superior sense of pace and rythym, especially the DX11 version.

And the DX11 version of DS2 crushes DS1 when it comes to level design.

According to Metacritic Bloodborne is From's best game....

Agreed, I love the fast paced action in Bloodborne. I can see how some might prefer the slow and more calculated action in Dark Souls though. Bloodborne is more reactionary.

Dark Souls has much more build variety but I replayed Bloodborne just because I loved everything about that game :P.

I just hope the soundtrack is as good. Apparently this game didn't get the same full symphony treatment as Bloodborne? It's what I'm hearing, might be false. Hopefully it is.

@Juub1990: It sounds like u need to git gud.

I enjoyed bloodborne from start to finish. I've owned all the souls games and didn't get into any before bloodborne, I don't have high expectations for ds3.

How much better BB would've been if they didn't streamlined the skill system, bell maidens weren't a thing and it launched with the same amount of weapons/armor as Dark Souls 3. Masterpiece... and probably the best Souls'ish game from FROMSOFT.

24 hours in.

Absolutely destroys Bloodborne. Stay mad.

lol What? That's all Dark Souls 2 actually relies, are you on crack?

It be nice if you actually played these games, and didn't get your opinions from a cracker jack box or something. It's routinely the most lazy Souls game, not that Dark Souls didn't have run up through enemies to the boss (ala Painted World), but it was used sparingly. Dark Souls 2 is that, all the time, the answer to that games spikes are, it threw a shit ton of enemies at you. It's fucking lazy.

Dark Souls 2 being spacy hasn't exactly been a boon for it, often it just comes off as an excuse for their mob set ups. Which are less engaging and just all around tedious. So no sunshine, you don't get why anyone liked the Souls games in the first place, if the slipshod effort is your idea of excellence.

Because upping how many Blood Vials I can carry, in my string of I use my left over echoes on vials, has greatly lessened that issue to be a non factor. Where as initially you could be average at the game and routinely run out of vials, in Bloodborne you will honestly actually put in some effort.

I would rather take BB's odd quality of life **** ups at the expense of having a better and more consistent game at its core. Dark Souls 2 for all its visual variety, has fucking awful level design at times. Both in terms of selling me a setting, and in terms of how they flow in combat. There are entire stretches where the game is so profoundly lazy with "meh, let's just throw mobs at you". The Unseen Village on its first time through is a pretty fucking rad area, and actually was a nice change of pace both in tone and presentation from the rest of the game (had music at the time). I don't like going back there because of the stupid bell maidens, but that's whatever. The only Charm Dark Souls 2 is a product of it actually having fun covenants and PvP stuff, which Bloodborne, needed badly.

But moment to moment sense of progression: eh Dark Souls 2 handles that better mechanically by always giving you some sort of gear you might want to work towards, what with fashion souls and all, but BB's central world direction was all around to me far more interesting, especially when it went full Lovecraft.

How many terrible transparent threads is Lem OP going to make today? Doesn't even put any effort into the mast head post either.

Lol'd at your sig.

Bloodborne 9> dark souls 3 8.

Which number is bigger?

@jagoff : So far 1. Demon's Souls 2. Dark Souls 3. Bloodborne 4. Dark Souls 2. I will see how Dark Souls 3 compares. Most likely 1 or 2

@XVision84: unfortunately DS3 soundtrack is my least favourite of the trilogy, and if we want to count Demons souls and Bloodborne, it's even less impressive. Shame really because of the soundtracks I heard it had potential but compared to their latest output Bloodborne , dark souls 3 is just average and I would rank the soundtrack as the least satisfying and immersive of any souls game.

It just doesn't have that profound effect to its soundtrack like the other souls did. I was amped for this game but now my hype is a bit down.

That really sucks to hear, my hype is still high though. Only thing worrying me are the frame rate issues later on.

This'll be my treat for when I finish exams so I'll enjoy it regardless :P.

Wrong

Many areas rely more on elites than mobs. Heides Tower of Flame, Dragon Shrine, Shaded Woods Ruins, Aldia's Keep, Sinner's Rise, Doors of Pharos, and Black Gulch are examples. And as for lazy, DS1's second half is fucking unfinished and patched together poorly. Talk about lazy. And many of the bosses in the first Souls game are just disgustingly bad.

And really, once you get past the Forest of the Fallen Giants, mobs simply aren't challenging. Its the elites and super elites that kill, as is deadly ankle biters such as toxic rats and those burst ghouls.

And no, Souls fans are full of shit. They ignore the clear flaws of the first game as well as Demon's Souls and bash Dark Souls II to kingdom come, ignoring things the game does right. And if they are going to praise Miyazaki and DS3 to high hell, they better know that it commits the same "sins" DS2 is accused of.

I have literally 0 idea how these games review so well. I understand a niche group of people might enjoy them, but from a pure subjective review standpoint, there is no well in hell these games should be anything higher then a 6 or 7.

From games consistently have poor visuals, poor performance (frame rate issues and such) Non responsive controls, poor/bland combat, and "trial and error" type gameplay that results in tons of wasted time. All while people pretend the game is difficult while it's not difficult at all. I have friends who are terrible at video games that love the series and beat them easily depsite not being able to beat any other games unless they are on easy and the kind of people that go 1K 20D every MP game.

So please can somebody explain how in the hell any reviewer can give these games 9s and 10s?

(some) reviewers aren't retarded like you my friend

Dark Souls > Bloodborne > Demon's Souls > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls 2

Finished DS3 yet?

My impact

Yay for tallest midget contest. Can't wait to see who wins. lol :P

I speak Japanese on a moderately survivable level and consoles aren't region locked.

Plus Dark Souls doesn't have much dialogue anyway

It's good but it's more of the same, the bosses are impressive and the graphics are good (I'd still say worse than bloodborne on graphics. They are close enough and both good enough where it doesn't add or detract from the overall quality though.

The sword arts are interesting but honestly Bloodborne had better combat, Dark Souls was my first and I prefer bloodborne's combat so idk there, I just went with dark souls first. Demon's Souls was great and was my second, Dark souls 2 is just rubbish, dark souls 3 > scholar of the first sin > 2

haven't played dark souls 3 but dark souls 1 is one of the best games I've ever played. Dark souls 2 was really not that good, washed out graphics, forgettable artwork and atmosphere.

Bloodborne is a piece of art , should have been dark souls 2 and judging from the gameplay videos from dark souls III it realy doesn't look as good as bloodborne, it does look better than dark souls 1&2 though.

wow your in depth insights really made me understand. /sarcasm

@darkangel115: if you need an explanation on the review scores, the entire review exists for a reason.

DS3 is better of course.

Except the review ignores issues and/or will mention them but not have them effect the score, yet other games will be docked for the same issues.

@darkangel115: all those these reviews? Sure

If it is, it's a hell of a game. And I wouldn't doubt it.

Bloodborne > Demon's Souls > Dark Souls for me. can't really get over lost izalith and duke's archives. i also adore the story and world of demon's souls; the stakes felt higher and the game overall had a much darker tone

Lems = Ofc it is

Sheep = Ofc it is

Cows = No its not

Some legit players = Yes/No because A. B. C.

In hindsight, the second half of Dark Souls is just as bad as the second half of Bloodborne.

I'm currently playing Dark Souls 2 SotFS, and it's nowhere near as bad as I was expecting I've preordered Dark Souls 3, and I've got a secondhand copy of Demons Souls, so I guess I'll judge them all in a few months.

Some HORRENDOUS Cow just closed my thread.

I didn't lie. Now you're playing DSIII, you can instantly see how much BETTER than Bloodbore it is.

Bloodborne felt more fun but that maybe because i didnt have that much of "souls fatigue" at that time. Dark Souls 3 is not bad soul game i guess but it feels pretty much "same old" been there done that before feeling to it.

I'm pretty sure if you were bad at video games you would not get passed the first boss fight.

Not true at all. AI can always be cheesed and DS isn't nearly as hard as people suggest.

Yeah I think DS3 is better that BB.

• Solid 60fps experience on PC
• Back to the DS item names/gear variety/multiplayer mechanics that make DS games great.
• Not exclusive so more people can play it

It basically takes the best of the other four games. There are only a few changes I like from DS2 that were thrown out. I can't complain, I'm very happy with it so far. Only negative thing I can think of is the roll animations are kinda janky in DS3.....