So I finished the game. I can't help but feel a little disappointed that it ended so abruptly, it feels like I missed so damn much content. Like who the hell the people in the cutscene after the white wolf boss were, what happens with the clinic at the first lamp, how do you get behind those gates, what the hell happens to the girl in the plague mask, where the crap is Oedon friggen cathedral!? Apparently there's an insight vendor? Where? I only have a page of weapons and armor! Are there covenants? Where are the invasions?

I used the same weapon and armor the whole game because I was waiting to find something else. I never even found a blood rock to continue upgrading my weapon.

It feels like it shouldn't have ended yet, I don't even understand where the story was quite going, let alone how it ended. I was just starting to get into the story, theorizing about what the hell it all means and then poof finished, you're the first hunter now, dark souls, I mean bloodborne is over.

It's a bit odd this game, it is such a carbon copy of dark souls in so many ways, yet it's got way less content.

Just finished my first playthrough, did about 85-90% of what there is to do aside from Root Chalices. Clocked in at 76 hours.

@red_piano: If it feels like you missed a ton of content, you probably did. I can tell you that all the things you mentioned are in the game/explained. These games don't guide you to everything in them and this one in particular has a ton of optional content. A lot of the mystery and surprises thrive on being discovered by the community and shared so if you're really interested in all those questions you asked, even the threads here might help you find more stuff out in a second playthrough.

@theblue: I'm aware, I have played all the games up to this point and enjoy them immensely and I enjoyed Bloodborne immensely to up to the final boss. I'm looking at the wiki now and there is less than half the gear and content that Dark Souls 1 has, let alone Dark Souls 2, but because Miyazaki had little to do with DS2 I won't hold that against this game. I explored pretty thoroughly, the crow NPC quest is easy to miss like all of the NPC quests in these games of course, but she kept telling me not to go to the oedon tomb and I never even figured out where it was to begin with, but I didn't see a single one of the covenants and there are multiple doors and places I couldn't figure out how to open and then at some point in the game, all of the NPC's just vanish entirely.

It doesn't help that I was forced to restart so I've already played the game twice but I don't know, even in Dark Souls and Demons Souls you come to PVP at some point whether you go out of your way or not, in Dark Souls 2 you don't just happen across the Red Sign soapstone of course, but you do get invaded whether you figure that stuff out or not. I don't even know how to be summoned into someone's game.

Obviously some of my gripes seem to be attached to the fact that this is the first time I played blind and solo, I usually use the wiki to figure things out as I go through the game but this time I wanted to avoid that to get the "true" experience, solo run, no guide, no internet, no friends and no forums and I have to say I'm really stricken by how much shit I missed and worst of all they just throw you into NG+ from the end of the game so now I have to replay the entire thing again just to get around and see some of these things I missed.

The worst thing is the story just seems to shut off. I paid pretty good attention and I tried to keep tabs on it but it just sort of comes to an end without actually tying anything together I felt.

@fredchuckdave: I didn't do the chalice dungeons, I wanted to wait until I finished the game to do those but then it tossed me into NG+ It took maybe 30 hours to finish for me.

Welcome to Bloodborne. The game that seemingly has less content than Demons Souls, DS1, and DS2, but everyone is giving it a free ride. 10/10

But hey, the combat is fun right?

Good luck getting Co-op to function right.

I don't think the lack of variety in weapons and things alone bothers me that much, it's just that it ends so abruptly and it feels like it wasn't ready to end to me. Otherwise I'm fine with a smaller more compact "soulsy" experience, it isn't a dark souls game though, it's bloodborne and clearly it's intended to make a more simple and focused game than the hodge podge that is demons and darks.

In terms of story, music, sound, visuals and just fun, I think this game beats the three souls games by a mile, I was far more enthralled in this game's world and lore than I have been in past souls games.

I'd have to agree with that. As a stand alone game and expectations aside for just another Dark Souls, Bloodborne is a very good game.

I do think it is the weakest Souls game made yet, though I still think it is a fantastic game in its own right. It would surprise me if it didn't end up in my top 3 this year. There is more content than you think. My first playthrough clocked in at 26 hours. But I missed about 20% of the game. Going through it again right now. Still liking it a lot.

I think the endgame kinda leaves a bad taste in your mouth because it just comes completely out of nowhere. Everything you learn about in the first third of the game doesn't even matter by the end. That said, I love this game immensely. It is too soon for me to compare it to other Souls games, but I also don't think you really can even make that comparison. It is truly its own thing, just as people here have already said. It is one of the most original, fun games I have ever played, so despite lacking a large variety of weapons and build types, I can't really knock it for not being another Dark Souls. Miyazaki is not the type of creator that likes to make the same game over and over again, he loves to change things up. Sure, you can fault Bloodborne for the steps backward it takes like the DeS style warping and the need to farm health and ammo, but it revolutionizes the two things I revered Dark Souls for: combat and exploration. I don't think I can go back to the old style of combat any time soon, and I don't think there's a opening set of levels that is more beautiful and thoughtfully crafted than Yharnam. Bloodborne may not be the best Souls game, but it has some of the best Souls content ever.

@claybrez: Yeah it just ends in a way I wasn't expecting, the wet nurse boss did not seem like the last boss to me, I was expecting it to go somewhere after that, especially with like all the half bird half dog things, it was starting to seem like it was getting into like sick experiment territory and then that whole arc of the story just ends and you go and fight germain and it's over, onto NG+. The story just did not feel like it was there yet and then it's over and the final boss seems to have nothing to do with the story? Unless I missed something.

As for NG+ it's a lot harder, I think I'm probably just going to go back and play a new character again and get all the shit I missed and follow a guide for the NPC quest lines and stuff because going at this game blind, all that stuff is not spelled out in the slightest so I don't even know how you would manage to finish any of the quests without a guide.

@zevvion: I don't think it's the weakest souls game at all, I think it's the best souls game, but at the same time I think comparing it to the souls games is bad for Bloodborne because it doesn't have the massive bredth of content that the souls games have, what it does have in my opinion is a better realized and far more interesting world and premise. The music rivals Demons souls, the boss fights all felt fair and exhilarating, it takes itself more seriously than Dark Souls did, there seems to not be any Patches or Siegmeyer or Solaire equivalent in bloodborne, which I prefer.

"Who the hell are the people in the cutscene?"

Master Willem is the guy you see and Laurence is the person talking to him. Willem is the guy in the chair on the balcony before Rom, the Vacuous Spider. Kill him for a sweet rune. Laurence we never meet, seems to be a prominent leader in either the church or the college. He is mentioned elsewhere, but his background is somewhat vague. Personally I thought he was the king of Cainhurst Castle, but I don't remember why I thought that.

"What happens with the clinic?" / "How do you get behind those gates?"

I assume you mean the gate by the clinic? Anyway, you can get in the clinic by a secret path in the Forbidden Woods. There are lesser emissaries inside.

"What happens to the girl with the plague mask?"

She's standing outside the chapel after you beat Cascoigne. She tells you she is hunting Hunters. If you go back to the Tomb of Oedon, she is there fighting a dude. Help her kill him, and later after you kill Rom, the Vacuous Spider you can help her kill a Hunter in Oedon Cathedral (where you kill the wolf lady, Vicar Amelia). She will give you a badge and a gesture for helping her. You can get her gear.

"Where is Oedon Cathedral?"

The Cathedral is where you fight Vicar Amelia. Oedon Chapel is the safe haven with the lantern. I think the other building with Amygdala that leads to Yahar'gul might also be a cathedral of sorts.

"Where is the insight vendor?"

It is the fountain on the small cliff in the Hunter's Dream. You need 10 insight to access it.

"Are there covenants?"

Yes. There are a couple, but most of them are just associated with NPC questlines. The most prominent is the Vileblood Covenant, which you access by talking to the Queen of Cainhurst castle (which I assume you missed since you need to go inside to clinic to get there). Alfred, Eileen the Crow (the Plague Doctor Lady), and Djura (the gatling gun guy) all offer covenants of sorts.

"Are there invasions?"

Yes, but only in specific areas at the end game, when ringing a bell for a cooperator, and I think the sinister bell may summon invaders as well? You can invade with the sinister bell.

Also, if you're wondering where to get the Blood Rock, it's in the Nightmare of Mensis. After you fight the first boss in the area, you can unlock a door to a pathway on the ramparts. You'll need to drop the Mother Brain (who is shining and causing you frenzy) first, which you do by jumping in a window on one of the elevators and finding a switch. The rock is inside where Mother Brain is, down on a ledge. You can see it from the aforementioned rampart.

@shadowconqueror: Thanks for the rundown. Yeah I definitely missed a lot, I had 60 or so insight by the end and never realized there was a vendor for it, I didn't see any of the covenants and didn't find the path to the clinic from the woods or cainhurst castle or the orphanage, didn't get the blood rock, didn't find several weapons and most of the armor I missed.

I'm going to make a new character and go through the game again that way rather than fight with NG+ because it feels a lot harder than NG+ in any of the souls games, sort of frustratingly so. This time I'll just use the wiki and figure this all out.

@red_piano: patches is in the game. you might not have noticed though because he has a spider body

Which final boss? There are three potential final bosses, each one having to do with the story. If you mean Gherman, then you missed the 'hidden' final boss.

Yes I meant Gherman, who is the hidden final boss?

If you collect three 'One Third of Umbilical Cord' (there are four in the game) and consume them before Gherman, you fight a boss immediately after beating Gherman.

Does it fit more into the story leading up to that point?

It fits into the overall story, yes.

Great game, but one of the best parts of of dark souls was being able to make diverse builds, and it built immense replayablity. I just feel like something is missing from this game. It's just not enough content to have the lifespan of Dark Souls. The limited stat selection, limited spells, limited weapons etc kills what made DS so amazing IMO. I would say Dark Souls is a better game by quite a big margin, but i really enjoyed Bloodborne, and it's my personal 2nd favorite game from the souls series.

This is true, but 90% of the playerbase ended up adapting to the same meta anyway. Think of all the Havelmonsters, Giantdads, mundane Avelyn's/Santier's Spear, whatever the flavor of the month is before it gets nerfed. And to be honest, I use what's effective. Gimmick builds are cool, but they're just that. The difference in Bloodborne is that it seems to me that every weapon is truly viable. Maybe there isn't as much on-paper build diversity, but I'm not yet convinced that it's going to hurt the game's longevity. I mean for a start it's just much better than Dark Souls 2, and Dark Souls 2 had no problems sustaining an active player base despite its myriad issues, like ridiculous hitboxes, enemy tracking etc. The proof's in the pudding, but the quality of Bloodborne's gameplay will give it plenty of longevity, I think. It will for me, anyway.

I don't much care about build diversity because I couldn't care less about the pvp community. My only problem with the lack of things in the game is more to do with how it was dished out, by getting badges and then buying gear rather than finding it around in the world or crafting it like you do in Dark Souls and Demons Souls. The weapons in this game area mostly all more interesting than any of the weapons in the entire souls series and each weapon has multiple move sets whereas that was a feature unique to one or two weapons in a couple of the souls games and I would rather have a bunch of unique move sets than a bunch of clone move sets.

@oni: Of course it will hurt it's longevity. Content is what keeps people playing the game. Dark Souls was great exactly because of what Asilentprotangonist said, because of numerous builds you could do that kept replaying the game exact game fresh. It was first and foremost a single player game and the series will always be that. In PVE almost every build was viable and it was fun starting over doing all of them. The only content BB has that keeps people playing is the Chalice Dungeons, but what reward do you even get from them? Just materials in order to do more Chalice Dungeons, weapon upgrade materials, different "types" of the same weapons, and gems. And come on the gems are a joke, people just hold down on the D-pad until they see the numbers turn blue for increase in damage and equip it. Making your weapon a fire based, arcane based weapon is such a waste of time since you lose so much damage. Instead just use fire paper, bolt paper, or the infinite phantasm thing. If they took the multiplayer out completely I don't even think anyone would notice. Come on is the combat really THAT improved or different. You dash faster, further, attack quicker, and you have a gun. There wasn't even a point to leveling arcane at all until later since you don't even get magic items until halfway through the game.

I want you to imagine if they released the next Elder Scrolls and improved the combat, but took out 70% of its RPG elements. There would be so much hate on that.

I also want you to ask yourself, what would you like to see in Bloodborne 2. If you say there should be more armor, weapons, items, better crafting system, which was all in the previous games even Demon Souls why does this game have less content then all of them.

There was another thread that asked if this series was becoming COD by releasing too many games. Bloodborne is it. It's a more simple, easier to grasp DS that a wider audience can get their hands on. I know so many people who haven't even heard of DS picking this game up to be a part of the internet buzz. Apologize for probably an insane amount of grammatical errors I'm obviously venting.

They did this, it's called Oblivion and Skyrim and people fucking loved it. Bad analogy.

@thehuntsmen5434: I don't really agree with most of that, sorry! I don't agree with all of the design decision FROM made here (I think you're mostly right about the gem system, I'm not a fan. It's too min-maxy for my tastes), but one weapon in this game is equivalent to like one or two weapon CLASSES in any Souls game. I don't agree that it's dumbed down and comparing it to COD just doesn't hold any water for me. Less content (probably not true if you count Chalice dungeons, but if we're talking "regular" game you're right for sure) can be justified by how much more detailed this game's environments are. I think the level design is visually and from a game design perspective above and beyond anything in Souls. It's just too early in the game's lifespan to be making those kinds of statements too, we don't even know what FROM's post-release support plans are regarding patches, possible DLC etc.

@oni: Maybe saying it's like COD is too much, but it does feel as though they designed much of the game to be balanced for multiplayer. By making everything feel similar and having less, it is easier to control and maintain. In that regard it just feels bland. I loved all the goofiness in DS and freedom, that's what made it fun. That some boss that killed me in one shot is now being owned by me because pyro is so powerful. I was also hoping the Co-op level restrictions would be lessened at least. Does it really matter if my level 80 friend joins my level 1 game and one shots the boss for me? It's a single player game who cares. Considering the majority of the weapons feel balanced why couldn't they just make it so when players join they get a handicap, or become the level of the host. No one cares that in Diablo 3 you can be powerleveled straight to level 70 in minutes because it doesn't effect anyone else. It just feels as though FROM is always policing my single player experience, and I don't understand why. Would it matter if a sword dropped at the end of the game shot fireballs that did 2000 damage? If balance is an issue with too many items of so many variations then just disable certain weapons in multiplayer. The solutions seem simple enough.

This is just absolutely not true. People get so hung up over weapon transformations that they don't realize it doesn't matter that much. DSII had more than double the amount of weapons that did the exact same thing, except they didn't transform. Their look appeared the same, but the moveset was changed dramatically. In fact, I think it's time to call it: it did it better. One hand, two handed and dual wielding. Double the amount of weapons as in Bloodborne that did that. And then there were still loads of weapons that didn't change that much upon two handing, but they are still there. There are 15 weapons in Bloodborne, some of which are near-copies or operate on the exact same mechanic (Saw Cleaver, Saw Spear and Reiterpallash, Rifle Spear are some examples). There are 223 weapons in DSII. 36 of which had unique altered animations and attack types assigned to them based on whether you were two handing or not. For example, the Threaded Cane has a sword version in DSII, except it has a lot more moves in DSII and can be dual wielded. 36 of them. And then we are conveniently ignoring the fact that the remaining 187 weapons also changed depending on one of two handing, although they didn't as much. But we're also conveniently ignoring that Bloodborne has multiple weapons that look and act very similar to one another.

It's just people getting hung up over a weapon transforming visually. What is so special about them if you take away the transformation? Not much. The Saw Spear is just the Partizan with less moves.

@zevvion: I just don't understand why people all of a sudden care that the move sets have a lot more variety now. I would take 30 same move set great swords with various stats and abilities over 4 great swords that are all the same stat wise, but attack differently. As I said before, the combat wasn't what made these games, it never was, and I don't understand why FROM felt the need to prioritize it so much. If getting the combat right was so important people wouldn't of been sticking with the series through 4 games.

@thehuntsmen5434: How is the combat not one of the most important parts of these games? Defeating challenging boss is what made these games great. Having horrible combat would totally make these games a forgettable mess. Why do you want 30 slightly different but totally useless weapons over less weapons with more variety and usability? You act like all the weapons are the same in bloodborne just with different move sets, which isn't true.

Took me 16 hours to beat it. I missed 4 optional bosses and a secret castle, which is where I believe those bosses to be located.

Now you are just talking straight crazy and I'm bowing out of this. We clearly don't see eye to eye. That's fine, but y'all both crazy. Partizan but with less moves indeed! Dark Souls 2 may have had a ton of weapons, but the move sets for the weapon classes were pretty limited. I don't think you're arguing in good faith with statements like that.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about Souls games. I can see where your obvious confusion is coming from.

@japanesebuffalo: So I guess all that improved combat mattered when fighting the spider Rom, Micolash, Witch of Hemwick, and any of the other beast-like bosses where you just dodge and attack. Those first 3 barely even attack you in a traditional sense. I'll admit sure the combat is better to a degree, but it boils down to the same combat as the other games. Whether you are using the saw, spear, axe, or anything else you find an opening after they attack then dodge again. The first and last boss are the only ones worth parrying to my knowledge, and if you raised bloodtinge you can just shoot most of them to death. Especially once you acquire Evelyn. Get the Ludwig's holy blade, set it to great sword and just hold R2. The enemies will just walk right into your attack over and over. They didn't improve anything, it's just faster. The enemies will just bum rush you like always, and you find ways to either attack before they do, or dodge and counter attack. As I said before these games were never combat focused, otherwise we'd be playing DMC or Ninja Gaiden if it mattered so much. BB and DS bosses and enemies were challenging because in general your character sucked. He can't move well, might've been slow, no defense, did little damage, but you still defeated the boss by learning.

Bloodborne is the best game in the Souls series, but reaching that point of polish and quality has lead to the series losing too much of its soul (in both uses of the word). It very much feels like the AAA-ing of something that is inherently counter-AAA.

They've streamlined the experience by removing the breadth of weapons, armors, spells, etc.. Making Souls more accessible is an admirable goal, but the tradeoffs are not worth it. Exploration is less meaningful when you're only going to find less substantial loot (gems, dews, vials). Builds are less varied when all armor is made end-game viable, and equipment load is removed from the equation. I'm seeing two and a half builds here: quality build, arcane build, and a minor skill variation of the quality build.

Of course, all of this directly affects the PVP in the game. Everyone plays the same, minus the moveset of their favoured weapons. It goes without saying that the game was clearly not designed with a PVP crowd in mind; Covenants feel like an afterthought, and the ease of healing seems like a concession made with PVE in mind.

Linearity is also another massive problem with Bloodborne. Yes, it has quite a few optional bosses and areas (and that's commendable), but the game opens up in very small pockets, and is severely gated. Every play experience is exactly the same. You can't really rush to higher areas to grab key items that you may need; this is a massive problem for arcane builds who have to artificially delay so much of their build until much later in the game.

Bloodborne has no legs is what I'm trying to get at. Like, it's an incredible experience from start to finish, but that finish is exactly that: a finish line where you eject the disk and move on. Where the other games had dozens upon dozens of viable builds that all played completely different, with different paths through the game, different objectives, etc., Bloodborne has one direction and one playstyle (barring weapon movesets). I'm playing an arcane build right now after doing the quality build, and I'm stuck with the same weapon (Holy Blade) because of the superior arcane stat scaling; same path through the game, same moveset, same experience. The differences are negligible: enemies burst into flames after I hit them, I had a different offhand weapon, and I have a couple situational items that I never had before.

It feels like Miyazaki wanted to get away from the traditions of Souls, veering into a traditional action game, but felt like he owed his fans more Souls. The end result is a game that feels like a mechanical compromise. Bloodborne is probably going to be my favourite game of the year, but it isn't as eternally special as Souls.

@kaos_cracker: There is only 1 boss in Cainhurst Castle (Martyr Logarius).

@project343: You pretty much summed up how I feel. The game lost it's charm and went in a confusing direction. Yes it's a fantastic game by itself, but as a fan who's beaten the previous games over 10 times each I am left at the end of BB with everything done and no motivation to crave more.

I remember in the previous games seeing an item in an odd location and get excited to figure out how to get it. Maybe a new sword, item, or hell maybe even an ENTIRE armor set. I find myself almost skipping picking up items in BB because I don't need another useless item in my inventory. My starting weapon and armor seems to be working well enough, and i'm confused why I even have an arcane or bloodtinge stat.

@thehuntsmen5434: If the combat doesn't matter, then why don't the souls games just control like Skyrim? Also you can break anything down to its most basic elements to make it seem like simple shit. Guess what you do in DMC. Attack, dodge, attack.

@japanesebuffalo: If they did control like Skyrim it wouldn't matter anyways. The combat is dictated by the enemies patterns so you can beat an enemy. All you need is attack and dodge in BB and DS, because that's what keeps you alive when fighting. In Ninja gaiden and DMC, there might be a new enemy that requires you to use a new move or weapon, then another new move, then another. Eventually it becomes dynamic enough to where you are fighting something and utilizing everything you have besides just attack and roll. Another good example is Zelda, as you acquire new skills and items in order to defeat enemies which would otherwise be impossible to beat.

You're just making an argument that shows that Bloodborne's combat is not similar to that of other games. That doesn't support that the combat does not take a central role in the game. Is combat similar to character action games; no = combat unimportant - is not valid reasoning.

The combat is tremendously important in these types of games. It is simple, not extremely complex, but deep and incredibly satisfying.

Yeah I've never felt the satisfaction of beating a boss in Dark Souls in any other game and it's because the combat is just so tactile and and fun.

@zevvion: I'm not in any way taking away from the importance of combat, I am making a point that BB and DS combat functions in a certain way that has been working for all the games. It's simplicity is what makes it deep because instead of learning how to fight with 20 different stupid combos, you focus on attacking dodging, and most importantly preparation before a fight. Leaving your brain to focus on what is important which is learning patterns and developing a build that can conquer your foe.

Which adds to my initial point that making BB have more of a focus on it's combat and less on it's content is overall a foolish idea because everything else does not lend itself needing "complex or better combat." considering you can beat everything in the game without changing items or armor throughout the entire game using just R1.

I'm kind of surprised that a lot of people missed the Nightmare Lecture Hall and Nightmare Frontiers. I ended up going there by accident.

Also, fuck those guys.

Quality over quantity. It's almost like 30-50 hours of laser focused, world class atmosphere, level design and gameplay aren't enough for some people. I'll take that over a sloppy 80 hours

Old Dante is so much better than stupid new emo Dante!

Bloodborne has a story? Sheeeiit. I got lost following whatever narrative the game tried to explain, something about being in a dream, killing everything you can, and,well, that's pretty much it. Typical FROM storytelling, which is to say, not much story at all. DS1 had a fairly clear story. DS2 I had little idea of the point. BB lost me. But I don't care. I love the visuals, finding a new area, getting new weps/armor/items.

That aside, I finally finished BB today after three months. I bought BB on the day of its release: March 14. Today is June 13. I have to say a big chunk of my time was spent in the dungeons, and those many hours lost to defeating the blood starved beast and Ebrietas, whom I did not defeat. I beat Gehrman on first try, and that Blood Moon thing on my second try.Then the game ends. Ta da, No explanation. Seems like there was something about an aborted baby that's still alive. Idk. Then the game restarts.

So many unanswered questions; so much blood; so much awesome headgear. I'll do NG+1 for a bit until I decide whether to buy Witcher 3 or Arkham Knight for my next few months of entertainment.

@thehuntsmen5434:

you know that you need to level arcane to get high damage with elemental gems? they arent even remotely useless...

my +10 fire saw spear wrecks beasts and other fire-weak enemies in the late chalice dungeons like nothing else...(with arcane at 52 or something)

the numbers on the stat screen is way lower than my +10 burial blade but its pure fire damage and with the damage-bonus from serration its the absolute beast killer (the paper buffs only add 80 fire/bolt damage to your weapon afaik)

as for longevity, i have played the game around 350 hours on 4 characters to this point (only pve and a lot of dungeon crawling) and still having much fun.