DARK SOULS vs. bloodborne

Bloodborne with the expansion is probably the best game in the series now. They even have a tower of latria now and that was my favorite part of DemonSouls.

@skelly34: demons souls' was goty and Sony exclusive.

Demon souls (dark souls - just dumbed version of it) and bloodborne (different and fun with new fast action oriented mechanic)

What are gramphics?

1: Demon's Souls
2: Dark Souls
3: Bloodborne

There are a lot of things I like about Bloodborne, its core combat mechanics are superior, its lore is probably the best suited for how From Software makes these games, and some of the boss fights in BB are fucking killer. The game feels like a proper build up from the type of level design Demon's Souls had, and in that context I think the game is killer. However, while they did patch it, I think having Blood vials as a system is worse than Estus Flasks in comparison. They gimped the PvP elements way too much, which added a lot to the atmosphere of the first 2 souls games, I think tying the magic to the bullets (which is also your parry) is worse than how the Souls games handle magic and parrying. It seems irritating to make that a limitation.

There are areas in BB that bother me, but I can say the same about Dark Souls. While Duke's Archives, Tomb of the Giants, New Londo and stuff never bothered me (I quite like the Tomb), but fucking Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith are GARBAGE from a level design standpoint. Also they recycled this one type of boss like 3 times, which if I'm remembering Bloodborne right, the only thing that gets recycled like that is hunter styled bosses, and those are badass as shit, and I'm bias to those type of fights.

Larger issue for Bloodborne, is that lack of new car smell. There are finer mechanical/systemic reasons why Dark Souls is better, and Demon's Souls is better, but the other part is by the time BB came out, we were on Demon's Souls 4.

Hipster ?

yes.

Calling Dark Souls dumbed down. xD

Do you even know what dumbed down means ? Yeah ?

I agree with you.

One noteworthy area in Bloodborne would be the Forbidden Woods. From a technical standpoint....I feel that games like Demon Souls and Dark Souls had a lower budget compared to Bloodborne which is obvious and understandable, in respect to the year they released in obviously. Dark Souls especially had some wonderful technical flaws -_-....

All are awesome, just love the weapons in bloodborne and the Hunters looks

Demon's Souls >> BB >> Dark Souls 1 >> Dark Souls 2

Just my opinion though.

I'm starting to really dislike this community.. lol, I noticed, some people are unable to form a rational argument, so they shout "damage control" instead.

I thought that area was overrated. Boletaria was more interesting and its surroundings projected more of a narrative.

Dark Souls was far more substantial. Bloodborne had a cool style but the characters and secrets were highly limited.

1. Only in your dictionary does funding = bought. So I guess when Universal Studios decides to fund a new Jurassic World movie, that equals to bribing the movie crew into making a movie for them, or as you put it....."buying the movie"

2. If your definition of 'feeling like a DLC' of another game is due to having a same style, then I guess Fallout 3 and 4 are just DLCs of The Elder Scrolls series

3. The characters might be more forgettable, but the lore isn't. Dark Souls lore is obscured but straightforward. Bloodborne's lore is equally obscured but harder to comprehend. It has to be in accordance to Lovecraftian mythos of 'The Eldritch Truth'. It's the eldritch truth, not the obvious truth

4. I bet that for every person who found Dark Souls exciting, there will be another person who found it tiresome. Opinions, opinions, opinions.

5. Chalice Dungeons can arguably be considered a mess. It's repetitive. But what are we comparing it to? To not having the chalice dungeons at all? I'll take having more options even if I don't use them

Dark Souls is indeed a better game, but not for any of the reasons you mentioned. And all the plausible reasons for Dark Souls being a better game are preference oriented - like if you prefer medieval fantasy, or if you prefer the more cautious as opposed to aggressive combat, or if you like a longer game

Dark Souls 2 > Dark Souls 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bloodbore

This guy is an xbone fanboy trashing bloodborne cause its exclusive. If u were a true souls fan u would love both. But personally i found dark souls better

Sadly Bloodborne would be a better experience if it ran on stable 60fps, the games performance has gone up noticeably since the launch but still not quite perfect. Especially having played the Scholar of first sin on PC then going back to Bloodborne, which is otherwise a superior game.

Dark Souls. Way way more replayable.

1. Dark Souls

2. Demons Souls

3. Bloodborne

Ughh... Dark Souls 2. I hate that friggin game.

Dark Souls wins for level variety, weapon variety, art design, boss design, multiplayer and repeatability. First time going into the fiery underworld was something I'll never forget. So many memorable moments. Bloodborne is like an idiot stepson that's kind of handsome. The gameplay in Bloodborne is the best in the series but everything else is lacking.

@acp_45:

Demons Souls

Bloodbrone

COD

|

|

|

|

|

Dark souls

Agreed ? 3: )

Similar? They are the exact same game a few differences in style choices.

So far I like Bloodborne more, but I only played Scholar of the First Sin as far as the others go. Still need to play Demon's Souls and the first Dark Souls.

Bloodborne lore is "forgettable"? Gtfo. It's just as rich if not more so than DS... you have no fvckin idea wtf you're talkin about. Anyway I would say:

Gameplay and aestethics - Bloodborne

Difficulty and complexity - DS

Don't know what you were trying to prove here...

I like Bloodborne but I prefer the atmosphere of medieval monsters, castles and dragons. I'm a sucker for fantasy.