Bloodborne is better than Dark Souls 3

I got the platinum trophy in Dark Souls 3 yesterday. I was still hungry for more of this type of game, so I booted this up again after a year of ignoring it in the ever-growing pile of evidence that I need to buy less stuff. Man, I forgot how much I loved this thing. The gameplay's smoother and more fluid, the world feels truly interconnected, the weapons and equipment and, well, everything are less about quantity and more about quality. Even graphically, the environments are less varied, but what's there looks far better than what Dark Souls 3 has going. I also just *might* be better at it. After I got used to how different the controls are again, I plowed through the DLC and what was left of the main game. Even the lore feels cooler and more realized (if more mysterious). It's got a real Lovecraftian vibe going for it...for more reasons than the obvious one of there being tentacled things all over the place. Of all the soulsborne stuff, I think this has to be my favorite one.

I agree. I absolutely loved Bloodborne, but I "just" really, really liked Dark Souls 3.

Both are fucking awesome, however, and while Bloodborne was my game of the year I can see DS3 being a top-5 sort of game for me.

Yes it its better than Dark Souls III, this is a true statement

No, Dark Souls 3 is definitely better.

I couldn't disagree more - at least when it comes to pre-DLC Bloodborne, which lost me about 15 hours in.

I mean, a lot of your points are correct and I would argue indisputable - like smoother gameplay (or at least, movement) and the world being more interconnected - but Equipment etc? Bloodborne is severely lacking. Sure, the actual designs of the equipment are cool (kirkhammer, holy blade, cane, etc) and they're by no means bad gameplay-wise, but I think your "less about quantity and more about quality" vastly undersells how meaningful variety is when it comes to the Souls formula.

I can spend hours talking about how all weapons pretty much boil down to their archetype - straight swords, greatswords , axes, hammers, claws, spears, reapers etc. There are 24 archetypes of weapon in Dark Souls 3 - and each archetype has (within itself) SO much variety and allows you to play exactly how you want to. That's without even getting into Infusions mind you!

Environments being more varied? debatable - looks better than Dark Souls 3? Hell no. There are definitely parts of Bloodborne, from what I saw, that made me stop and look, but at a minimum Irithyll of the Boreal Valley from DS3 is probably the best looking area in a Souls game (aside from being surprisingly small and having some gameplay issues). If it isn't the best it's definitely up there with places like the Dragon Aerie in Dark Souls 2 or the first time you saw Anor Londo before realising that the archers are THE LITERAL WORST.

Perhaps the biggest thing when it comes to my problems with Bloodborne though is the gratuitous lack of potential build diversity (again, in the base game as I'll likely never go back to play the DLC). Sure they added a shield later, but MAN - the stuff they did with equipment, how strongly they encourage you to stick with one weapon, the lack of magic, etc etc etc...

Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on bringing back freaking item farming. The person who decided that the thing you need to use for parrying is something you should have to farm for is bad and should feel bad about being bad. I know at the end of these games the soul economy means you can buy infinite amounts of everything, but early game matters SO much to the overall experience. Ergh.

To me, Bloodborne may well be the worst in the series, and is the only one I didn't even want to finish. I'm not going to say it's a bad game because it clearly isn't, but it makes some serious missteps in my opinion.

EDIT: Oh, I would also like to round out by saying, in the end it may well come down to that gameplay. If someone likes that aggressive always-be-on-point style of gameplay I can see why BB would be the best for them. If you prefer varying things up, approaching things from different angles, planning ahead, building a character, being methodical, or even to some extent tanking (aka the Vinny Style), I'd argue that every Dark Souls game is better.

EDIT2: Softened the point and took out some verbal ticks I apparently have.

Environment variety alone lets me say "nope".

While they share the same ancestor, their fundamental differences makes this discussion rely too much on personal experience. However, the major issue people had with bloodborne is lack of build verity. I for one didn't see it a minus but a plus. Bloodborne might be the most polished combat From has done but it's very specific at how you approach it. Dark Souls is much slower and more methodical and gives you more option to aaporch a situation. Some people like it some don't.

As far as atmosphere, Bloodborne takes all of the souls games without a doubt. Save for the Prison of Hope level from Demon's Souls, I don't think there was any other level in all the Souls games that came close to the perfect harmony of graphics, lightings, and most importantly sound design, of Bloodborne.

That said. There is an argument about where Dark Souls 3 sits within the Dark Souls franchise.

Souls/Bloodborne expert @fredchuckdave might have something to say about this.

@selfconfessedcynic: Agreed. Being pigeonholed into a few specific playstyles, none of which really appealed to me, just bummed me the hell out after the freedom of the previous games. One of the most obnoxious things about the Souls fanbase is the common attitude that there is only one "right" way to play those games, but that didn't actually change that you did have the freedom to play many different ways. Bloodborne was basically the developers echoing that sentiment and telling everyone else to get lost.

lol

/thread. That's it. Lock it up. Fuck sake you almost made me spit out my beer. Fucking hilarious.

Bloodborne was boring as fuck

/opinions

Bloodborne was an average action game and an overly simplified Souls game. It didn't meet the high of either, the best thing it had going for it was its art direction.

Bloodborne would've been better as a pure action game à la DMC/Bayonetta/NG. It should've been even faster than it was, should've had more combat depth and disregarded stat builds all together. Instead it was a slow action game, with a very basic combat system, borderline pointless character progression and weapon enhancement system.

Honestly after playing Nioh my opinion on Bloodborne lessened even more.

Better is often subjective and likely is no different in this case. While I feel like I need a little more time/distance from Dark Souls 3 before I can really properly analyze what I think about the game and where it sits on my list, I don't feel like it is objectively worse in any way compared to Bloodborne on most accounts; build variety is definitely a low point in Bloodborne, but I haven't replayed any Souls game with several different builds since Dark Souls 1.

@jeff would likely agree as something really seemed to click with him and Bloodborne... at least moreso than with any other Souls game.

Bloodborne is easily my least favorite Souls game. Lack of variety killed that game for me.

No way Jose!

Maybe, but Devil May Cry 3 is way better than Bloodborne.

While there are certainly things (atmosphere, story, and quickness) about Bloodborne that I prefer to Dark Souls, it's by far the mechanically weakest of the Soulsborne games (excluding Demon's).

Put me in the camp that thinks Bloodborne was the worst "souls" game.

Was the easiest one, and the least interesting one. The only one I took and traded in after beating.

When I got my Platinum in Bloodborne (which was really quick and easy, even requiring 3 play throughs) I traded it in and got Scholar of the First Sins for the PS4 and had a vastily greater time with it then with Bloodborne, and it was the second time I had played that game.

I can agree with that statement, though it's not like Dark Souls III is much behind Bloodborne in my personal estimation.

I played so much more of Bloodborne than I ever will of Dark Souls 3. I like the way Bloodborne handled weapons a lot more than DS3. Looking at the list, it seems like there are a lot of weapons in Dark Souls 3, but about 90% of them are inferior versions of the other 10%. A lot of the weapons are just terrible, and you only have enough material to upgrade a few of them, so you end up just sticking to the ones that work. Arguably, the best weapon in DS3 is the longsword. The plain old boring ass longsword will out dps and out perform almost every single other weapon. A lot of the weapons I'd find I would try out for about minute, go "Huh, that's neat" and proceed to un-equip it and never use it again.

Every weapon in Bloodborne feels unique, different and viable. I can't say the same about DS3, and weapon selection is pretty important to me. Also, you can strap a goddamn tombstone to your back. DS3 ain't got shit on the Kirkhammer.

Yup, Bloodborne is definitely the best.

I completely agree.

Make a poll for it and I guarantee DS3 wins.

Polls mean jack squat.

If the whole thing boils down to variety, then that's not much of a point. Bloodborne's strength is in its focuses. Focus on aggressive play, theme, build type, PVP. And on that whole thing hinges whether a person, coming from the other From Soft games will either love or hate Bloodborne.

I don't go into Souls games looking for a grand variety of expression, so Bloodborne is fantastic.

I wouldn't say variety is the be all and end all of Bloodborne's problems, though it is my largest issue with it. I'm not going to sit here and tell you you're wrong because in the end it all comes down to personal preference.

But my opinion, to answer your point, is that if you were looking for a focussed experience, I side with @baronsamedi in saying that DMC/Bayonetta/etc - real damn action games - do it far, far better, just without the gothic horror twist which many may find unique and appealing.

I also barely even understand how "focus on build type" could be a positive in a game where you're still asked to allocate stat points and get a lot of different types of equipment. It just feels like a suboptimal half-way-measure between something like a DMC where you get a couple of very different and meaningful options and Dark Souls where you get a gigantic variety. Add that to the vastly diminished amounts of viable styles of play in Bloodborne (especially when talking about PvE as things like magic dont even become available till late game) and they may as well have stripped all of that stuff out and just had you pick a class.

That said, I'd never argue when it comes to aggressive gameplay or theme though (and am no expert at PvP), so I'll definitely concede that Bloodborne does those well.

Bloodborne is the best. Da beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeest.

Don't be crazy.

Nah, can't agree with you there.

In terms of environmental variety Bloodborne actually is just as varied as Dark Souls 3. You don't stay in the city area for the entire game, thats basically just the prologue. It's the Boletaria palace, or the Undead Burg. There are twisted woods, dark catacombs, rustic castles, Cthulhu lands of bizarre origins. The entire second half is one new, unique location after another, and I have to agree that it does seem more detailed than the generally flat feeling textures of all the Dark Souls games. Apart from a few key moments where you exit a hallway and get treated to a really beautiful vista, you know the ones I mean, Dark Souls 3 actually has some really boring areas. Starts strong with Lothric but then it's a really long slog through dull and rather poorly designed areas until you finally get to more interesting architecture - and once you get there, that style doesn't change until you hit the end of the game.

I haven't played DS3 yet so I can't speak to that but anyone who says DS2 is better than Bloodborne is absolutely crazy, DS2 is the hottest of garbage.

I tried getting back into Bloodborne last night and the framerate made me actually physically ill. If it could run better (at the very least hold a solid 30) I might...no, never mind, even at 60 DS3 would still be an exponentially superior game IMO. The story and characters are incredible and pulled me through the whole game in only a handful of sittings where with BB it's been around for over a year and I'm still chilling in the nightmare frontier.

@selfconfessedcynic: Bloodborne, to it's own fault really, is a game where the player really has to dig through the surface to discover the builds. It's not as expensive or varied as Souls game but it's there. With Souls game, builds are very close to the surface and you really don't have to dig underneath it's surface too much. Bloodborne just put a major emphasis on melee and most players won't go digging through it's many layers to try to discover the different options.

It's kinda like discussing which system is a better tabletop system. Do you prefer the multi dice use of D&D or the d10 system of NWOD.

Personally I liked what bloodborne did to differ itself from the souls games. It was a rather fresh take on an old familiar meal that I rather enjoyed. However I know it left out many things that hardcore souls players just couldn't get over.

the one thing I won't agree on is people saying Bloodborne had boring levels and environments. I do not like to generalize but I found that most people that say that never really advanced beyond Yharnam.

I'd say they're about on par - they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Bloodborne without a doubt has the better melee combat, which lends itself to some pretty outstanding bosses. Bloodborne does duel-esque bosses against fellow humanoids better than any of the Souls games, with Gehrman as a particular highlight. I prefer Bloodborne's soundtrack overall too, and the gothic horror crossed with lovecraftian imagery made for a pretty unique blending of two distinctive aesthetics. I also appreciate the much more simplified weapons upgrading system too, especially for how fitting your weapon with fire for example is something you can easily undo no fuss no foul.

However, Bloodborne's lack of variety in terms of playstyles is a noticeable flaw. I actually like the idea behind giving you a much more limited weapon set with each one wholly unique from the next, but the lack of any other playstyles beyond essentially dashing everywhere meant that practically everybody played the same way. Part of the fun of the Souls games is witnessing everybody playing it their own way with their own gear setup. Plus what I've always liked of the Souls games is how practically every piece of armour and clothing you see in the game can be yours - in terms of sheer fashion variety Bloodborne's selections was pretty slim. Then there's the fact that Insight is an unfinished system, the chalice dungeons are just terrible (complete with an end game boss that rewards you with nothing), and the multiplayer aspect of things--both cooperative and competitively speaking--felt a bit lacking. What passed for the game's covenants were terribly weak and undeveloped. I adore Bloodborne all the same in spite of its flaws mind you, but I welcomed the traditional breadth of content that a Souls game offers with open arms come the release of Dark Souls III. Plus DSIII was able to implement certain streamlines Bloodborne introduced - long gone is the obtuseness the likes of Demon's Souls' systems, which I'm happy about.

Anyone that genuinely believes that DS2 even comes close to approaching 'garbage' are crazy.

I think part of it is that having put over 150 hours into Dark Souls 3 and doing everything there conceivably is to do in it, the honeymoon phase is over. I've seen past the shiny newness of it and am well acquainted with the jankiness on offer. That isn't to say BB is perfect by any means; the things it gets wrong just happen to detract less from my enjoyment. Another part is that I've always been a huge fan of the character action games you guys are talking about like Bayonetta, DMC, etc. Like with everything, it does come down to personal taste.

Sure, there are a crazy number of weapons in Dark Souls 3, but each of the Bloodborne ones just have more going on. Even discounting the fact that they can transform into essentially different weapons, each form of each weapon feels like it has more to it than any one in Dark Souls. There are a few exceptions of course; there's certainly more complexity with the farron greatsword than the default form of the saw cleaver. As a rule though, there seems to be far more variety in playstyle and utility on display with any given Bloodborne weapon. It also has the advantage of that DLC being available, which doubles the number of weapons to pick from. But all that's a digression, up to my own personal interpretation and at the end of the day, wholly besides the point. The gameplay in Bloodborne just feels better to me. I like my favorite way to play Bloodborne far better than my favorite way to play Dark Souls 3. At the end of the day, which one I like better is really just a battle between those 2 things.

I can see why you'd think it doesn't look as good if you only got 15 hours in. That early part is densely packed, well thought out architecturally and in flow progression, but overall drab and same-y looking. Irithyll is definitely a great looking area. Some of the later parts of BB are absolutely beautiful though and I'd argue the area you fight in for the final showdown(s) is the prettiest damned thing I've seen in this series.

I can see farming for quicksilver bullets being annoying. But as I ran around dual-wielding daggers and stabbing fools to death, it never became something I had to deal with. Even blood vials weren't an issue for me after the first few hours. At the moment, I'm sitting on over 600 of each with no sign of needing to ever look for more. That said, I do prefer the estus system and it's one of the things DS3 does better.

You should really play more advanced areas before speaking on strategy, tactics, planning, difficulty, etc though. Father Gascoigne isn't exactly a pushover when you're starting out, but otherwise, the early game of Bloodborne is very easy compared to what you have to get around later on. If I were to judge Souls 3 on my first 15 hours, I'd say it's absurdly easy compared to even that same time encapsulation in BB.

I think Dark Souls 3 is sort of destined to be the "third favorite game in the series" for most players. Before you tell me it isn't as such in your case, of course, this isn't going to be true for everyone. But DS III is trying to do the "least amount of new" in the series so to say. And I think that's very intentional. Souls III feels like a "best of" game. It mixes and matches elements of every game int he series together. And thus, you're bound to like parts of it that resemble your favorite parts of the series and likely to hate parts that resemble the games you like less.

I mean for me, Bloodborne is my favorite game in the series with Dark 1 being a very close second. I like a lot of things about Dark 3, but its probably the least balanced game in the series since DeS. There is a certain lack of polish in some regard (the busted poise system for instance). There are some brilliant areas, but boy there are some total duds, especially early on. I really hate the fact they bring back some of Dark 2 design in some enemies where they abuse enemies not really having stamina pools to worry about and having insane lunging/tracking moves to compensate for bad AI design. There also feels like there's some input lag that is driving me up a wall on some enemies given how quickly the game wants you to react. And many of these issues feel like the result of "annualizing" Souls games.

Dark III is a great game, but it also feels like the argument as to why this is a good place to end the series for now.

If there was a PC version of Bloodborne maybe.

nah

The only correct way to rate Souls games is by the quality of the credits music, so DS3 clearly wins here.

Nah, but both Bloodborne and DkS3 stand as the weakest in the "franchise" to me. That is to say they're both amazing games but I just didn't feel them as much as the others.

I need to get back to it but it may very well be the best souls game as far as pure gameplay. I think the focus on pretty much one style of play instead of multiple classes made it feel more polished. It was the first game in the series that grabbed me right away but i recently went back and played through ds1 and 2 so maybe my feelings will change when i go back. I like ds3 but it feels like a step back from ds2 at least for my type of playstyle (no shield and 2 hand katana).

No, I'm in the camp that says the pared down gameplay styles undercuts a lot of the appeal of making a build, and it pushes you toward a certain style that isn't as interesting as the earlier soul games, not to mention the covenants are lame. And, even though I'm a sucker for Lovecraftian stuff, the world of Dark Souls has much more interesting lore to me. It's a great game, but yeah, weakest souls game.

No. And make it a vote

I enjoyed it a lot more than DS3 (especially with the DLC) just because they were doing something different with it, and the gameplay was just better overall.

It's hyperbole on my part but maaaannn did I not enjoy DS2, having played it after DS1 and Bloodborne and loving those I just couldn't jive with DS2 at all.

Bloodborne is an amazing atmosphere with some of the worst gameplay decisions in any game I have played. What do people like to do in DS? Use cool new weapons and try new builds? Lets make people complete the entire fucking game to get some weapons and hid most the others well past the halfway point.

You definitely need to play them and kind of draw your own opinion. Honestly, every Souls game is something I'd rate on a 10-point scale as between 8 and 9. So much of it is up to personal preference. If you have a PS4, I'd say go with Dark 2 SotFS if you want something longer with the most weapon/build options (DS III might have more, but I feel like it's less balanced thus far and hides a lot of upgrade resources until really late in the game). Go with Bloodborne if you want something a little more akin to character-action games or if you are more into that type of art-style. There are fewer build options, but they're more focussed and developed than in other games (the DLC did add a bunch of new weapons though). Go with Dark 3 if you're worried about the difficulty of the series and you kind of want to sample it out a bit. You'll definitely know which game in the series to try next based on what elements of it you like. But on the other hand, you will miss out on a bunch of lore references it has (it gets super fan servicey at times). I think it's the easiest of those three games though.

You don't want to get too caught up in the Souls-fandom war. Everyone is going to give you a different opinion.