i am absolutely in love with Bloodborne after putting 30 hours into it and I'm starting to think I made a mistake passing on the souls games. The remastered version of Dark Souls 2 is out tomorrow and I'm thinking about buying it when I'm finished with Bloodborne. I know that the combat is slower paced and I'm wondering if it will be hard to go back?

Yes, you should totally give it a shot. It has a lot of the same sensibilities. Bloodborne is a more polished, better start to finish game that wraps itself up neatly, and doesn't give you much to come back to. Dark Souls 2, by contrast, has highs and lows, is infinitely longer, has more compelling RPG elements, and could easily keep you busy for hundreds of hours with how great the Covenants and build variety are.

Both games punish you for dying in different ways. Bloodborne has finite health potions that you need to farm; Dark Souls 2 lowers your health bar with each death (up to a point), but refills your health potion stash at every death and checkpoint.

Dark Souls 2 is also much less linear. You have options on where to go, what to do, what to find. If you want to build a Cleric, for instance, you know that you need to go rescue to the Miracle seller ASAP. This works together with the RPG elements being better in Dark Souls 2. You find items and gear hidden everywhere. Items that initially seem useless, but have incredible value later on; items that are practically essential in particular builds. Bloodborne, by contrast, is nothing but filler blood gems and dews--stuff that has very little impact on the game (obviously some gems are totally valuable, but they're few and far between).

Bloodborne is a better game, but Dark Souls 2 is a better Souls.

I was 20 hours into DS2 and wrestle with this very question. If I do go back, then screw all shields and heavy armor.

Oh, absolutely. There are some mechanical differences to be sure, but Bloodborne is a Souls-ass Souls game. Playing a previous game in the series should feel immediately familiar. Don't worry about the pace of combat; the Souls games allow for incredibly diverse builds and you'll find a build that feels right to you. If you have a PS4 for Bloodborne and have never played a Souls game, definitely pick up the remastered Dark Souls II.

I would think you would be better at DSII going back to it. And it might seem much easier.

Yes, dark souls 2 is a fantastic game. It has it's issues but so does every souls game, Dark Souls 2 has way more replay value and more in-depth multiplayer systems to insure you keep coming back to it. Sigh i'm considering buying it for the 3rd time now as well just to play it on my ps4.

It actually isn't that much slower. People just chose specifically to play slower. And you have that option. But you can also play fast.

Also, I'd like to point out that Scholar of the First Sin is an insane deal. It features the best DLC the Souls games have ever had and each of them are 8-15 hours if you play them for the first time. The base game is also a very healthy length. I believe it took me 60 hours on my first blind run. That's 90-100+ hours of awesome stuff. You should definitely check it out, though you should be wary that the world building in that game is less good than in Bloodborne and Dark Souls. But it does have a lot of variety though.

Bloodborne is by far the easiest Souls game. Beating most of the bosses, and there aren't that many of them, on the first try is telling. In my second playthrough I have died twice and I only have the final boss fight left. That's nuts. I'm not saying DSII is hard, but I die more than twice on any given run. Also, Dark Souls is easier than DSII. Nearly every boss can be beaten the exact same way, whereas DSII required you to mix it up a bit from time to time. I agree that DSII had too many bosses and some of them were complete push overs though. But I sometimes think people remember DS much harder than it actually was. Overall, I'm always saying Dark Souls had the design, DSII has the gameplay.

Also, I agree with everything @project343 said. Though I'm not convinced if Bloodborne is a better game than DSII. Simply because indeed, DSII is a better Souls game and I might value that over a better game overall.

Sure, just play a weird character archetype. Lemme tell you about dark magic... It's not as powerful as you'd think, but you have sorcery and/or miracles to pick up the slack

Going back to check out Scholar is gonna be rough. I'm so used to Bloodbornes combat now that going back is gonna be a big downgrade.

@zevvion: I think you mistake your experience with the Souls games transferring to Bloodborne with the game being easier. It's much easier to rely on taking hits and just healing through things in DS and there's far more options to approach something if you get stuck. I beat all but 2 bosses first try in Bloodborne but I'd say in general it's harder. Enemies hit much harder and they come in larger numbers they also hit faster. I'm hearing a lot of people are 20 hours in and they've only gotten up to Vicar Amelia and the Witch of Hemwick that's pretty telling honestly.

if you like Bloodborne, you will like all of the past Souls games, but to varying extents based on what you like in your games. I highly recommend you try all of them. Scholar of the First Sin is a great deal for a console you clearly already own, but if you're especially hesitant, you could get the old version of the game for much cheaper without the DLC. I say go for SOTFS though.

The thing about DS2 though, is that even if you play a fast style, it won't feel as fluid as bloodborne. Honestly, I find DS2's style of gameplay just a little bit clunkier than DS1 and Bloodborne, but that's personal preference speaking.

Yes, I am not trying to dismiss other people's experience with the game. But Bloodborne forces you to play 1 style. The other Souls games allowed a wide variety of styles. Some people chose specifically to play those with a slow build, taking hits and healing as you say. Some chose to play them how you are forced to play Bloodborne. And if you've played the Souls games how you're forced to play Bloodborne, then Bloodborne is pale in challenge by comparison.

You can kind of play that game like Bloodborne (even DS1 a bit) and since it doesn't rely on grinding for consumables, and you can always parry, and it isn't as parry heavy, ...yes. It's a good game.

I thought Bloodborne was easier than Dark Souls II...

@zevvion: Yea that was my point, you weren't a shield and heavy armor person much like myself. It makes Bloodborne seem much easier than it is. However when you take into account those people who always looked for the highest defense armor and the heaviest shield Bloodborne becomes a nightmare for them. It's all perspective some people are so scared to even attempt to parry in Bloodborne even though the timing is far more forgiving and makes bosses significantly easier.

I still find Black World Tendancy Demons to be the hardest, stupid black phantom trolls in 5-2.

Actually only played Demon's Souls twice, so I'm not that familiar with it. I think the DSII DLC is what I find hardest. Though I can clear it relatively easily still, but that's just experience. It is good stuff though. Fume Knight, fucking love that fight. Harder than any boss in Bloodborne.

Dark Souls 2 is the worst one but don't let that stop you. I wouldn't go with that one for your first dip into the Souls games, especially if you're coming off of Bloodborne despite both games sort of being easier for people that don't try to tank their way through the thing. I'd start with Demon's Souls (and not just because it is the best one and the first one) but because it's actually kind of similar thematically with Bloodborne in a weird way so while there's dragons and medieval architecture, it's not quite as whiplashy as it would be going from a world like Bloodborne to the ones in Dark and Dark 2. If, you know, that's a thing that matters for you. It does me, but I'm the asshole who thinks the lore in Dark Souls/2 is dumb and the story even more dumb.

But if you're really looking to give the Souls games a try, a remastered Dark Souls 2 is probably going to be okay. It has some questionable world design and mechanics, but hey, it's an inferior sequel what can ya do.

If you want to go back to the trilogy of Souls games, play the best one (Dark Souls). Dark Souls II is still a fantastic game, but it really doesn't capture the magic of the first one. If you are a fan of Bloodborne's level design, Dark Souls II will disappoint you in the regard. As much as I love Demon's Souls, It is definitely harder to go back to compared to Dark Souls I&II.

If Dark Souls II is your only convenient option, however, you really can't go wrong with Scholar of the First Sin.

Thanks a lot guys, you have all been very helpful. Since it's £33 on Amazon I think I'll give it a go. It seems like a fantastic value and since I'm right at the end of Bloodborne I would really like another game in this style.

Ignoring the typical DS v. DS2 debates on here, the answer to your question, OP, depends on what you like about Bloodborne.

• If you like the gothic setting or the gun-toting parry/regain combat system, then it might be difficult to go back to either.
• If you are enamored by level layout (e.g., shortcuts looping back on themselves, infinite mob respawn), I would suggest going back to DS1 instead.
• Personally, I don't fall into either of those camps, and I much prefer DS2 to both Bloodborne and DS1.
• In any case, you should give all Souls games a shot if you like Bloodborne because opinions on here will vary, and you shouldn't let our preferences replace your own.

I was thinking the other day about something similar. I've primarily been a spear and shield player through the Souls games, but I've really taken a liking to the more offensive style in Bloodborne, so I'm looking forward to tackling DS2PS4 with a less defensive style.

There are so many options in the way you play that slower paced combat doesn't have to be the case. I haven't used a shield once on my current DS2 playthrough.

I wouldn't, game was mediocre to me initially, slightly better visuals that still pale in comparison to BB and the same badly designed world design and bosses is a no no for me.

Im my opinion ds2 is well worth playing, and Is just a wonderful game.

And to me bloodborne is much harder than the other games. All of demons souls was a cake walk after I got magic shield, that spell made even the boss fights trivial. Ds1 and ds2 ive beat at lvl 10 and a run unarmed. This game has proved itself much harder to me.

I'm loving Bloodborne to bits and still buying Dark Souls 2 tomorrow. I had a blast with Dark Souls 2 on ps3, though it was a lot easier than Dark Souls and Demon's Souls. The visuals won't bother me much, I'll miss some of the moves and weapons from Bloodborne but Dark Souls 2 had a lot of content and the DLC is sure to be worth it.

I disagree with this. The lore in DSII is very interesting. Also, I find 'story' as a reason to play a Souls game a very weak argument in and of itself, since you most likely won't get it if you just play through it. It definitely is not a draw of the series to play them. Nearly everyone just watches lore video's or discusses their take on the story with others on message boards; playing through it doesn't give you any satisfaction as far as story is concerned.

If you want to say the world in DS is more interesting than DSII, then we are in agreement. That said, the gameplay is a lot better in DSII still.

@pompouspizza: Yeah it shouldn't be too much of a problem. You can play a typical souls game in many different ways. So if you want you can totally play a very lightweight character with a small kite shield used for parrying. Or you can play a variety of other builds - heavy armor with slow rolls, medium armor, magic, magic and sword, magic and shield, etc etc. Dark Souls 2 is probably the pinnacle of evolution for the series. People who will tell you it's disappointing or a lot worse than Dark Souls 1 have simply put some weird shutters on where they don't remember the plethora of bad things about that game, including really awful bosses and some horrible level design - not to mention all the pointless running around for the first half before they so graciously allow you to fast travel.

And that's my copy bought, I thought it was coming out tomorrow but my local game stores had it. They didn't even have it on the shelves, I guess Bloodborne is taking the shelf space. I'm surprised to see it actually has a game manual, it will be interesting to see how active the Co-op will be. I already heard from a friend that some of the earlier levels are slightly different, like there are enemies where there were none before, that kind of thing.

I briefly went back to demon souls yesterday and after playing bloodborne demon souls suddenly seems waaaaaay easier. I'm dodging like a mothereffing pro! I never liked the heavy builds in the souls games but also always had difficulty with dodging stuff, seems like bloodborne solved that for me, all enemies in demon souls seem to give you ages to react.

I also checked out the rest of the souls games for a quick comparison and imo demon souls and bloodborne by far FEEL the most alike/the best to me controllwise. I actually even thought dark souls 2 felt kinda wrong. Dont know how to explain it though.

I take it you are fond of T-Rex lava pools and christmasy ice caverns :)

the correct rating is:

Demon's Souls - best atmosphere

Dark Souls 2 - best gameplay

Dark SOuls - best forgotten

Still haven't played Bborne so no smart ass comment on that yet.

@haniball What do you mean by best forgotten? Anyways, I think Bloodborne certainly has the best atmosphere. It has good world design, but it is way monotonous to the point where I'd rather take DS' slightly 'out of nowhere' design that features a lot more variety over it. Also, the bosses in DS look far better than anything in Bloodborne.

The same as DS1? Sounds like you might have missed something there. It explains the events on DS1 and how it is in an endless cycle. It's not the same, it builds on what was already there.

It's fine that you like that stuff, but I guarantee you most people will play Bloodborne and not truly understand what actually happened until they read about it.

@zevvion said:

If I could butt in on this conversation. I think the problem with DS2's lore is that a lot of it seemed obtuse because the developers on the game thought that was what the fans liked. It wasn't that Dark Souls' narrative was obtuse, the draw in my mind was that putting it together was a lot like working on a jigsaw puzzle. Once you had all the pieces fit together, it formed a coherent plot, a coherent world, and an explanation for what was going on. DS2, I think, didn't have that. Dark 2 has a ton of item descriptions that imply what's going on but provides no real answers. In the overall sense, there's a through line, but none of the minutiae from Dark 1 made it over. I found that personally disappointing. Really enjoyed playing it, though.

As far as Bloodborne goes, I think out of all the FROM RPGs so far, this one is the easiest to grasp from a narrative sense. Once you get over the initial hurdle, a lot of things click into place rather quickly. It seems far more straightforward to me than Dark 1 or Dark 2. Of course, this could be due to the fact that I've played three of these games now and I know what to look for.

I didn't say the story was good. But it's not the same as DS. I actually found some of that stuff pretty clever, albeit an obvious set up to be able to do Dark Souls III. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt the majority of players actually read item descriptions to begin with, let alone sit in the room with a glass of tea trying to piece them together. From what I gather from message boards, this isn't the case. They look up lore video's more easily than figuring it out themselves, if they even care to do so.

@canteu: There are more video's being watched out there than made. The fact that people make them and watch them only supports nobody truly understood what was going on I would say. Otherwise you wouldn't go find an external source to clarify what you've already played.

ONE OF US. ONE OF US. :D

Wait, what? If you are implying that needing to look up what exactly happened in Souls games means you are stupid then you're actually crazy.

@pompouspizza: I'm wrestling that same question but with dark souls. I think the answer is yes

Just played about an hour of DS2 and my only warning is that the roll is a whole lot worse. There aren't many i-frames on it, so you can't really roll into attacks to get behind people, you actually have to back right off and wait for a chance to get a quick attack in before getting straight back out again. Unless you have like, perfect timing and stuff. Enemy attacks also home in on you during their wind ups, so if you roll to get behind them too early they just follow you and hit you anyway.

I'm going to try and stick with it because Adaptability is supposed to increase the i-frames on the roll (the two DS2 wikis say the opposite of each other so who knows). But man, does that roll suck right now.

It depends if you don't like slower more careful game play then it might be hard to go back to the souls games. But if that does not bother you, the souls games have more going on if you will. Armor and inventory weight plays a factor in what you can carry and how fast you move/roll. The mid to late game has more class options in creating a build around different weapons or magic. So in true the souls games are a bit deeper and have more options. The only thing to keep in mind is unlike bloodborne the souls games do not reward being aggressive unless you are really skilled or in the groove of things. I say go for it if you are not hang up on playing a bit slower because it will be a nice step up in learning more stat and weapon systems.

Yeah, Bloodborne made timing a whole lot less important. Parrying and the distance and iframes on the dash are insane, so that you can get away with nearly everything. In DS and DSII you actually have to time that stuff properly. You should keep practicing because it is totally possible to avoid every single attack. And yeah, Adaptability does increase iframes, or more specifically, Agility does.

Bloodborne is failing to reel me in for the extreme long haul. I've already beaten the game once, managed to dominate the first 6 mandatory bosses on the first go around, handled the first 3 without getting hit, and I am finding myself questioning why I should continue playing. I have felt a massive urge to go back to playing DS1 and 2. With 'Scholar of the First Sin' coming out in a few days, I will definitely grab it. I already know I will enjoy it much more than Bloodborne.

I wouldn't say that Bloodborne is by far easier at least from what I've played. I beat most of the bossfights in DS2 on my first try especially later in the game (the ancient dragon being an exception obviously) whereas I only beat the first boss in Bloodborne on my first try (again, this might change). It all depends on your build and what kind of gameplay comes easier to you I'd say.

I've always played these games with only a sword and dodging. It actually made playing Bloodborne kinda weird because the timing is more forgiving and expects you to dodge almost at the first sign of a telegraph. I found myself waiting too late to dodge and getting hit usually. Especially since there is a slight bit of wind up on the dodge itself where you're not invincible.