Is Bloodborne a "Souls" game?

Avatar image for savage
Posted by Savage (782 posts) 4 years, 1 month ago

Poll: Is Bloodborne a "Souls" game? (413 votes)

Yes. 70%
No. 6%
YOU DIED 24%

I was browsing the wiki and came across the Souls franchise page, which was looking a little sparse and covered Demon's Souls and Dark Souls 1 & 2. After updating the page a little, I had to wonder: should Bloodborne be added to the Souls franchise page or not?

I can see evidence supporting either position. On one hand, it literally doesn't have the word "souls" in the title. It also, arguably, demonstrates the biggest departure yet from the formula that Demon's Souls established. On the other hand, the Souls DNA is unmistakeable throughout the game, and everyone talking about it seems to be doing so in the same ways as a Souls game. Ultimately, with Bloodborne having been created by the same developers, including the same director as Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, it seems safe to say, if nothing else, that it was born of the same blood.

Avatar image for krullban
#1 Posted by Krullban (1470 posts) -

It has the same basic framework and you can call it a souls game based on how it plays and the mechanics in place. But it's not part of the souls franchise. Unless somebody proves that the story is connected in some way.

Avatar image for oldirtybearon
#2 Posted by Oldirtybearon (5626 posts) -

Mechanically, Bloodborne is built on the foundation of Demon's and Dark Souls, but everything else? Completely different. Arguing that it's a part of the Souls series is like arguing Call of Duty is a part of the DOOM franchise. They both share the basic framework of a genre, but nothing else.

Avatar image for fisk0
#3 Posted by fisk0 (6867 posts) -

Mechanically, Bloodborne is built on the foundation of Demon's and Dark Souls, but everything else? Completely different. Arguing that it's a part of the Souls series is like arguing Call of Duty is a part of the DOOM franchise. They both share the basic framework of a genre, but nothing else.

Well, Call of Duty and Doom were made by entirely different people. A better comparison could probably be Doom and Quake, Doom and Heretic, or maybe Duke Nukem and Shadow Warrior.

Moderator Online
Avatar image for oldirtybearon
#4 Posted by Oldirtybearon (5626 posts) -

@fisk0: True enough. DOOM is usually the first game I think of when discussing FPS games, so it's usually the first example I reach for in regards to, well, anything.

Avatar image for sammo21
#5 Edited by sammo21 (5968 posts) -

Yes, it is a Souls game. Like they said on the Bombcast, the reviewers guide even admits its a souls game. Same structure, same hooks, same concepts, and a few changes here and there. I would argue this is more Dark Souls 2 than Dark Souls 2 was.

Also, in terms of the story, that means nothing. The film Soldier is set in the Blade Runner universe, does that mean its a Blade Runner movie? No.

Demons Souls and Dark Souls are Souls Games and they don't share story at all outside of some From Software hooks that are shared amongst the two. They also don't have the same setting or mechanics (1:1) but they do share far more similarities than differences, and they are more than just being the same genre or sharing the same camera angle.

Just because Bloodborne isn't called Blood Souls doesn't mean its not a Souls game.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for zevvion
#6 Edited by Zevvion (5965 posts) -

Mechanically, Bloodborne is built on the foundation of Demon's and Dark Souls, but everything else? Completely different. Arguing that it's a part of the Souls series is like arguing Call of Duty is a part of the DOOM franchise. They both share the basic framework of a genre, but nothing else.

That's a weird analogy. I get what you're saying, but then you could say the same for Demon's Souls compared to Dark Souls. Bloodborne plays exactly the same as the other Souls games with some obvious tweaks. Just like every Souls game had some tweaks with each installment. The only truly different thing about it is the setting, not much else.

Yes, Bloodborne is a Souls game. I felt instantly at home as soon as I started playing and trump a bunch of its tricks because I understand how Souls games work. Although I have to admit, the giant insect head-enemy near Byrgenwerth really got me.

Avatar image for spoonman671
#7 Posted by Spoonman671 (5874 posts) -

Bloodborne is pretty much a fraction of a Souls game. It's the dual-wielding, parrying, evading part. I don't know what they did with the rest of it.

Avatar image for lisatiffany
#8 Posted by LisaTiffany (181 posts) -

Seems like it to me, apart from there being no shields and you can dodge faster it plays almost identically.Visually though it feels very Lovecraft which feels like a great step in the right direction. I honestly don't follow the story in the series so even with Bloodborne I don't care too much why I'm there, for me it's all about the challenge/exploration and the artistic level and character design.

Avatar image for zevvion
#9 Posted by Zevvion (5965 posts) -

Bloodborne is pretty much a fraction of a Souls game. It's the dual-wielding, parrying, evading part. I don't know what they did with the rest of it.

The other stuff is still in there, but significantly reduced. They really want you to play a very specific way. Which is too bad.

Avatar image for sterling
#10 Edited by Sterling (4134 posts) -

No. Its a Blood game.

Avatar image for probablytuna
#11 Posted by probablytuna (5008 posts) -

I would say technically it's separate from the Souls series, but a lot of the fundamentals are the same.

Avatar image for ares42
#12 Posted by Ares42 (4342 posts) -

I would say it's a Souls game in spirit, but it's not part of the franchise.

Online
Avatar image for sethphotopoulos
#13 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5777 posts) -

I think the name not including the word "Souls" is meant to tell people that there are some changes to the formula. However the basic gameplay is really similar.

Avatar image for zevvion
#14 Posted by Zevvion (5965 posts) -

I think the name not including the word "Souls" is meant to tell people that there are some changes to the formula. However the basic gameplay is really similar.

I doubt that's the reason. I think Souls is not in the title because they want to make Dark Souls III and not have brand dilution and/or confusion.

Avatar image for zippedbinders
#15 Posted by Zippedbinders (1198 posts) -

The real question is if its a King's Field game. Its like, King's Field 7.

Avatar image for shindig
#16 Posted by Shindig (4911 posts) -

There could be a connection between the world of the Souls games and Bloodborne with the games theoretically being set hundreds of years apart although this feels like a weird partial reset where the developers extend on to what's gone before it whilst also building new frameworks. Effectively keeping the series fresh whilst still feeling somewhat familiar.

Avatar image for par1val
#17 Posted by Par1val (91 posts) -

yeah. Only reason I say that is because none of the games have the same storyline. Demons souls being different from dark souls, dark souls having a different story that dark souls 2. I barely played 2 so I might be wrong. So I dont think think it needs "souls" in the title to be a "souls" game.

Avatar image for conmulligan
#18 Edited by conmulligan (1901 posts) -

It certainly is in spirit, but for wiki purposes I'd argue that it's not. Technically speaking, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls aren't in the same franchise either, so it's a little strange that they share a franchise page.

Avatar image for niceanims
#19 Posted by Niceanims (1754 posts) -

It's a "Souls" game, but it's not a Souls game.

Avatar image for friendlyphoenix
#20 Posted by FriendlyPhoenix (651 posts) -

If Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are considered part of the same series despite being two separate IPs owned by two separate companies, then I don't see why Bloodborne shouldn't be considered part of it as well.

Avatar image for gamefreak9
#21 Posted by gamefreak9 (2877 posts) -

As far as i'm concerned, Souls games are either a brand or a universe, not a type of game. LOL is not a dota game, they are both Mobas.

Avatar image for shindig
#22 Posted by Shindig (4911 posts) -

Wait a minute.

  • Demon's Souls (Sony published)
  • Dark Souls (spiritual successor to Demon's Souls - Namco published)
  • Dark Souls II (actual sequel to Dark Souls II - Namco published)
  • Bloodborne (Sony published, spiritual successor to Dark Souls?)

I dunno. I get the feeling From just like creating spiritual successors as an intentional pun. Plus they don't need to be explicit with their lore and keep track of it. And From must call the shots otherwise Sony might've pushed to rename it Demon's Souls 2. The name means nothing. You come for the core.

Avatar image for y2ken
#23 Posted by Y2Ken (2942 posts) -

I would say that it's a Souls game, but not a part of the Souls franchise (which seems to be your actual question).

The core framework is similar (and the development crew is largely the same) but this has very definitively different mechanics and themes than all the prior Souls titles. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a new Souls game arrive with shields, spells, and a traditionally "medieval fantasy" setting (or however you'd define it).

Avatar image for shadowconqueror
#24 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3413 posts) -

It is definitely not a Souls game, but it is very similar. That would be like saying Red Dead Redemption is part of the Grand Theft Auto franchise.

Avatar image for bushpusherr
#25 Edited by bushpusherr (1080 posts) -

It depends on whether or not you are talking about "Souls" as a series/franchise, or "Souls" as it's own genre. It's absolutely part of the same Souls genre that From has created, but it isn't the same series/franchise.

Avatar image for boozak
#26 Posted by BoOzak (2571 posts) -

Is Patches in Bloodborne? If so it's a Souls game.

Online
Avatar image for bushpusherr
#27 Posted by bushpusherr (1080 posts) -

@boozak said:

Is Patches in Bloodborne? If so it's a Souls game.

Im not sure if they ever name him, but there is totally an equivalent.

Avatar image for doctordonkey
#28 Posted by doctordonkey (1818 posts) -

@boozak: Yes, he is. He's a spider.

Avatar image for rafaelfc
#29 Edited by Rafaelfc (2243 posts) -

I consider it to be totally a Souls game.

You guys can debate this to the end of the time, it will always be a Souls game to me.

Avatar image for frostyryan
#30 Edited by FrostyRyan (2920 posts) -

Yes in spirit. No in everything else.

@sterling said:

No. Its a Blood game.

This guy. this is the guy right here.

Avatar image for tru3_blu3
#31 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3570 posts) -

Overall, it's apart of a branch of King's Field games where each follow different mechanics and rules but globally consider a design philosophy that I'm too lazy to elaborate upon. Bloodbourne is very similar to the Souls games in which your player model is in third person and there's a huge amount of depth in its melee combat involving dodges, weapon reach, attack animations from different weapons, and a gimmicky online component. But all of King's Field are challenging, unforgiving, filled with trial-and-error and the other crap that makes us hate and love these games.

So globally, it's a King's Field game.

Intrinsically, it's a Dark Souls game.

Alone, it's a Bloodbourne game.

Avatar image for windir2112
#32 Posted by Windir2112 (218 posts) -

Same developer, same systems, same pain. It's 100% a souls game except sony can't call it one because then it can't be an exclusive. Even the review materials sent with the game even refer to it as a souls game from what I've been told.

Avatar image for zolroyce
#33 Posted by ZolRoyce (1589 posts) -
Avatar image for oursin_360
#34 Posted by OurSin_360 (6156 posts) -

No, but i can't help but say I need to get my souls back when i die...

Avatar image for doskias
#35 Posted by Doskias (418 posts) -

I feel like if we're asking this question, we need to ask if Dino Crisis is a Resident Evil game.

Avatar image for shiro2809
#36 Posted by shiro2809 (268 posts) -

@windir2112: I'm sure they could have called it 'Blood Soul's" or whatever. I mean, they own Demon's Souls still which is the first Souls game.

Avatar image for zevvion
#37 Posted by Zevvion (5965 posts) -

@windir2112: I'm sure they could have called it 'Blood Soul's" or whatever. I mean, they own Demon's Souls still which is the first Souls game.

They could, but why would From Software do that? DSIII is in development, why have two products with Souls in the title? It would cause confusion. Bloodborne, Dark Souls III, Bloodborne 2, Dark Souls IV, Bloodborne 3. Better than having Souls everything in your title.

Avatar image for shindig
#38 Posted by Shindig (4911 posts) -

Maybe Bloodborne just made a better title and fit with the lore better? Blood does not have a soul.

Avatar image for overnow
#39 Posted by overnow (515 posts) -

This is my first From game and I would probably call it a Souls game. I think that's a good quick way to make it clear that the game is a difficult action RPG made by From/Miyazaki. I'd kind of compare it to how rogue-like is used for games that are like Rogue, but it's more specific than that.

Avatar image for fl1p
#40 Edited by FL1P (1 posts) -

After 2 years: we can say that Bloodborne is consider a Souls game, but for Miyazaki and From Software isn´t part of the Souls series. Technically isn´t part of the series, we can´t match DS "lore" with Blood "lore", Patches and the Holy Moonlight Sword are just part of Fanservice, it doesn´t mean anything.

PD: King´s field has a Moonlight sword too.

Avatar image for ungodly
#41 Posted by Ungodly (446 posts) -

Mechanically yes, but with slight differences. Story wise no, but there are references between the series. Honestly outside of a few standout characters and armor, there's not a lot of connection between the Dark Souls games as a whole.

I still consider Bloodborne a Souls game, because of the parallels that are there.

Avatar image for darkeyehails
#42 Posted by DarkeyeHails (578 posts) -

Your answer is going to largely depend on whether your talking about connections via mechanics or connections via lore. I think for the purpose of putting it as part of a franchise in the wiki then the answer is no.

Avatar image for tru3_blu3
#43 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3570 posts) -

It's an action adventure game.

Avatar image for crayzor
#44 Posted by Crayzor (60 posts) -

It certainly is a souls game for me.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.