It really seems like a lot of people, myself included, like one of those two games a whole lot more than the other. It seems like the huge variance in playstyle/weapons/mechanics between Dark souls II and Bloodborne causes a lot of people to sway heavily to one side or the other. What I would like to know is there anyone out there who really enjoys both games equally? If not, what was it that caused you to enjoy one game way more than the other?

I'm in the "not" column, and it just comes to gameplay. I never felt frustrated with Bloodborne combat, whereas DSII had moments where I wanted to break the disc (Ruin Sentinels, specifically).
I stopped around 15 hours into DSII, but I did every optional boss in Bloodborne within 29 hours and would've kept going. Really looking forward to any BB DLC.

I'll pick up Scholar of the First Sin when I get done with Lords of the Fallen, because I did enjoy the game. I just loved Bloodborne, but only liked Dark Souls 2.

I'm one of the few people who wasn't wntirely let down by DS II. I think it's a phenomenal game but I think Bloodborne is even better. That being said, after playing Bloodborne and watching the recent Dark Souls 2 quick look I kinda am hesitant to go back to that game. Mainly because THAT STAMNIA BAR IT FILLS SO SLOW!

There's not a souls game I've played so far that I didn't at least really like. I had a great time with both.

I just finished Bloodborne about 2 hours ago and really enjoyed it. Right before I played through DS2 SofFS on PC and really enjoyed it too. I would say that other than the original Demon Souls (which I didn't finish before my PS3 ate it) I do love all of the Souls games, including Bloodborne, and I do not heavily favor DS2 over Bloodborne or vice versa.

Having finished both again recently, I definitely liked DS2 more than Bloodborne; I feel like I got more out of it as a whole. Including the original release, I played through all of the content of DS2 at least three times for a total of about 120-150 hours. Bloodborne was one and a quarter play-throughs totalling about 30-35 hours. I feel like I've really finished with both and would be surprised if I picked up either again. It would take DLC for me to play Bloodborne again at this point and I don't particularly want to play though the whole game again just for DLC so it'd have to be spectacularly good DLC.

Specifically, I think I'd rank DS2 just barely higher because co-op and pvp are better done. I want my co-op/pvp experience to be chaos at best, and frankly the cluster fuck multiplayer of SotFS was perfect. Summon up to three dudes to fight the dragonrider without pulling all the levers at the beginning of the game so he's got 300% health and 4 people have to fight him while trying not to fall off, perfect! Spend 35 minutes waiting for someone to help against Ebrietas who then immediately dies, not so much...

I really loved the idea of co-op exclusively with friends, but neither my brother or I ever managed to summon friends or each other for chalice dungeons using their password system. Hell, I didn't even realize you could summon multiple people for a fight until I was ringing the resonant bell at the castle and saw another dude with us. Maybe the ps4 co-op community just sucks compared to the PC one, I don't know, but I never had a problem once in DS2 either dropping my sign or summoning others. I was ringing my resonant bell pretty much constantly during the 1st half of the game and was only ever summoned once; frankly, the reward for getting summoned and beating a boss was consistently shit every time I actually managed to get summoned.

Frankly, I want them to take co-op a step farther and just let you load in another player period, one who doesn't go away after every boss and let both parties get credit for stuff (borderlands style I guess based on the host?). Just add a health/damage bonus to enemies and let there be constant invasions while someone else is loaded in.