I haven't played nioh in its entirety yet, just the demo, but I assumed Bloodborne is the better game. The artstyle and lore of Bloodborne alone makes it better.

Nioh is one of my favorite games from this year, I really liked it, but I think Bloodborne is a little better. I was more into the atmosphere, style, and there was a little more variety. I don't think Bloodborne is better than Dark Souls. For me, it goes Dark Souls/Demon's Souls, Bloodborne, Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin/Nioh, then Dark Souls 3. Dark Souls 3 is really the only one that I didn't really like a lot. I added Nioh in just to say that I liked it as much as Scholar of the First Sin.

In Nioh, even though they 'remix' the stages up a bit, it's still the same stages through side missions and it can get a bit bland running through those again. They throw in Onryoki too many times in my opinion throughout the game, and while they do give you the ability to change up stance, the game never gives the player a reason to once they find their footing in a specific stance. For me, I took the heavy stance throughout, mainly using the heavy attack and either a hammer or ax throughout. It was a bit repetitive for that reason, but still a lot of fun and still a challenge, but not that big of one.

In Bloodborne, I wasn't as satisfied with some of the environments as I had hoped. There's a lot of swampy looking areas, but it probably beats out the blandness of some of the levels in Nioh. I liked the enemy design more in Bloodborne as it was more cultish and creepy. Both games are great though. Are you looking for a recommendation, or just curious and have already played both? Combat isn't really the only thing to look to see which is better, but I would say Bloodborne is a little better in combat. It may just come down to animation too and how the hits land. Not sure. Bloodborne looks better aside from frame rate.

I liked them both and got about as far in both before stopping. Haven't beaten a non souls "souls" game yet actually. Nioh is a better performing game though, Bloodborne's 30 fps looks more like 20 half the time because of pacing issues while nioh gets close to 60fps

Bloodborne for level design and boss design, Nioh for actual combat systems. Both of them are lacking in terms of loot structure for me but Niohs systems are more interesting and varied than Bloodbornes when it comes to creating character builds.

If they learn from each other in future games their sequels will be fantastic.

I'm very keen to jump back into Nioh when all the DLC content is out.

Bloodborne is miles ahead of Nioh, which is still a good game, but has some serious flaws. I haven't played the Nioh dlc, so I can't really comment on that.

Nioh is very unfocused as a game. It's a loot game with constant drops and minute stat changes and tons of overdesigned gameplay systems that the game gives almost zero incentive to engage with. To address the weapon stances directly, most of the stance changes are irrelevant. You can play around with them to make cool combos, but it doesn't necessarily help you get through the game any easier. The weapon transformations in Bloodborne feel a lot more meaningful, because the game is better at providing scenarios where the alternate move sets are actually useful. Most of Nioh is 1v1 fights against the same handful of enemies, and this is the biggest problem with the game because it runs out of enemy types at about the 40% mark. It's also way too long by about a quarter, so the lack of variety really stings. It spent a long time in development, and it really seems like they had a lot of ideas and changed genres multiple times, but never cut much of anything. It's still fun at a basic level, but it's trying to do so many things that none of those things individually feel all that great.

Bloodborne is much more focused. Sure people complain about the lack of build options compared to Dark Souls, but that's not the type of game it's trying to be. It's focused on refining a specific pace of melee combat, and there is some flexibility within that (slow weapons, fast weapons). But you won't be a slow tank with a big shield nor a squishy mage casting spells constantly. But what it does, it does just about perfectly. There is some content bloat like Nioh in the form of the chalice dungeons and blood gems, but overall enemy variety and more refined moment to moment gameplay made it more tolerable for me.

Basically, Bloodborne focuses on a limited tool set and repeatedly puts it to the test in new and interesting ways. Nioh gives you a big, messy, unrefined tool set with lots of customization, but never really compels you to engage with it.

Generally, the top three things I like about Soulslike games are world immersion, deliberate combat, and variety in builds/playstyles. I found Bloodborne to be relatively weak in all three of these areas. Nioh is also weak in world immersion, but the combat is excellent and the playstyle variety is very good. So I've definitely enjoyed Nioh more.

For most people, though, I think that Bloodborne offers a better all-around package. Nioh is better for those who prize gameplay above all else.

If you combine both those games you'd get something really great. I love the world of Bloodborne but some of the typical Souls jank really got on my nerves and the performance issues are a whole seperate albatross around that games neck. Nioh rank great and played really well but I couldn't bring myself to care about the story despite it's loose historical backdrop and the level design was lacking in the art department.

Both fun yet ultimately flawed games.

I haven't played Nioh all the way through yet (I really need to get back to it at some point). I think Nioh is awesome. I love the setting, I think the individual levels work well. It is tough but not too tough and unforgiving.

Bloodborne though is the better game, I think it overall 'felt' a bit better, I enjoyed the setting and, for whatever reason, felt more compelled to play through it all.

They are pretty different. Nioh has a more involved/Versatile and faster combat system, and it's more about hacking and slashing to get that #sickloot. It's a lot of fun, but it's pretty much all gameplay and mechanics. Don't go there for the story or atmosphere.

Bloodborne is much more of a pseudo horror atmosphere piece with gameplay that I personally find fun, but it's very one note. You go in aggressively, dodge aggressively and just keep attacking. There is pretty much no other way to play it. Which was fine by me, and I like the game better overall. Just know that if you like using ranged attacks, blocking or heavy weapons you might be better off with Nioh.

Nioh without having to think about it. Bloodborne is the weakest Souls game in the core franchise I've played, and I played all of them. It misses the mark on literally every aspect that makes a Souls game good except world building. The combat is weak, the game is too easy mechanically and too predictable, there is next to no build variety/world variety/gameplay variety, the combat system is superficial for this type of game and it doesn't offer tempting replayability.

Nioh almost wins by default. The only Souls game I wouldn't pick over Bloodborne is Lords of the Fallen and possibly Demon's Souls. I haven't played that newest game from the Lords of the Fallen guys, but I suspect I would also not like that one (which is why I didn't play it). On top, Nioh is actually pushing things forward for the Souls template, whereas others are just trying to refine it. If that.

I do get why people like Bloodborne, but the people that do are often playing these games for something entirely different than I am.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Nioh is better than Bloodborne though both are excellent and better than Dark Souls 3.

@ivdamke: If you're counting Way of the Demon which is kind of like Pure Black World Tendency Nioh already has 100+ hours of new content right now.