-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Dark Souls III or Bloodborne? Which wins out for you. Explain why?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
I haven't finished DS3 yet but I think I've played enough to get the gist of it.
It's Bloodborne. Definitely Bloodborne.
It's Bloodborne. Definitely Bloodborne.
Bloodborne. Better setting, better lore, better level design and better combat. I vastly prefer the fast dashing, gun parrying and trick weapons. GOAT DLC as well.
I don't really see how that's relevant, they're in the game now.
Bloodborne just barely edges out Dark Souls III as my second-favorite game in the series behind Dark Souls. In fact, for a while I preferred DS3, but eventually I decided that I like BB just a little bit more because
- superior sound design, particularly the weapons
- amazing art design, rich environments created from a limited color palette (although with certain ReShade mods, DS3 can look incredible, too)
- incredible soundtrack, best in the series (followed by DS3's)
- more fun boss line-up: this one is kinda subjective, but I feel that even BB's weaker bosses like Celestial Emissary or Micolash can still be enjoyable in their own, dumb way, whereas certain of DS3's bosses I simply hate (Cursed Greatwood, Wolnir). Both games have a selection of standout bosses, though.
- more interesting story/lore: this game is what got me into Lovecraft
- the combat, while I don't think it is inherently superior to that of the Souls game, feels more balanced against the enemy and encounter design in Bloodborne; in DS3, occasionally the pace of combat feels at odds with certain other mechanics
Overall, Bloodborne feels like a slightly more polished and cohesive visionary product than DS3. The latter game, though, does boast
- far better role-playing: between the many more different weapon and armor sets, more fleshed-out covenants, more numerous and complex NPC questlines, and overall greater build variety, DS3 offers the player much more to work with for creating unique characters and roleplaying as them through the game
- superior level design (not world design, mind)
- much more sensible and better-designed upgrading system
- better multiplayer
- 60 FPS with flawless frame-pacing and higher resolutions if you so desire (and no God-awful shitty chromatic aberration to boot!) make Bloodborne feel like crap in comparison
At the end of the day, though, they're neck-and-neck for me. I've spent virtually an equal amount of time playing both (~400 hours).
Why do you think DS3 wasn't a good game?
- superior sound design, particularly the weapons
- amazing art design, rich environments created from a limited color palette (although with certain ReShade mods, DS3 can look incredible, too)
- incredible soundtrack, best in the series (followed by DS3's)
- more fun boss line-up: this one is kinda subjective, but I feel that even BB's weaker bosses like Celestial Emissary or Micolash can still be enjoyable in their own, dumb way, whereas certain of DS3's bosses I simply hate (Cursed Greatwood, Wolnir). Both games have a selection of standout bosses, though.
- more interesting story/lore: this game is what got me into Lovecraft
- the combat, while I don't think it is inherently superior to that of the Souls game, feels more balanced against the enemy and encounter design in Bloodborne; in DS3, occasionally the pace of combat feels at odds with certain other mechanics
Overall, Bloodborne feels like a slightly more polished and cohesive visionary product than DS3. The latter game, though, does boast
- far better role-playing: between the many more different weapon and armor sets, more fleshed-out covenants, more numerous and complex NPC questlines, and overall greater build variety, DS3 offers the player much more to work with for creating unique characters and roleplaying as them through the game
- superior level design (not world design, mind)
- much more sensible and better-designed upgrading system
- better multiplayer
- 60 FPS with flawless frame-pacing and higher resolutions if you so desire (and no God-awful shitty chromatic aberration to boot!) make Bloodborne feel like crap in comparison
At the end of the day, though, they're neck-and-neck for me. I've spent virtually an equal amount of time playing both (~400 hours).
Why do you think DS3 wasn't a good game?
Dark Souls 3. I prefer the slow methodical gameplay of Dark Souls compared to Bloodborne. I platinumed Bloodborne and I always felt like I was fumbling my way through encounters.
I also like DS setting as opposed to Bloodborne.
I also like DS setting as opposed to Bloodborne.
Gotta go with Bloodbourne, it's got the better designs when it comes to weapons, characters, environments and enemies. Also I think gameplay is the most fun of them all along with the DLC
Bloodborne. Easily. spoilers for both games!
The most profound difference is that Bloodborne is truly original, whereas Dark Souls 3 synthesizes Bloodborne and DS1-2 at best, is trapped in the shadow of previous Fromlikes at worst.
Bloodborne dared to focus. It decided it would be about speed in gameplay, cohesion in aesthetics. And it took these ideals of cohesion and aggression to the extreme- Blood Vials were drops to reward assault instead of dashing through, rallying was designed to compensate for damage and hence let people stay away from lanterns for much longer. It decided two thirds of the game should take place in utter darkness, and built around that. (Admittedly, I'm not very pleased by the fact that three urban areas were back to back right at the beginning, and the darkness made everything look kind of samey after a while.)
I think that dedication's paid in spades. Trick weapons are an incredible concept. Almost any trick weapon would've been the standout in the arsenal of any Souls game, but here you can turn a cane into a whip, switch weapons, and fire a bullet from a sword- and it's almost normal. Enemies, while overwrought in detail, are almost all very satisfying to fight and Kin/Beast enemy classes work better than the bajillion status effects in any Dark Souls. The lack of equip load works very well in tandem with the sheer amount of classy and irresistible armor sets, from suits to gowns to breastplates.
Dark Souls 3 has some amazing weapons as well- Friede's Scythe comes to mind, as it might single-handedly make me go through NG+ in a year or so. But 60 types of swords aren't as memorable as the Saw Cleaver or Ludwig's Holy Blade.
And let's talk lore and setting.
Dark Souls 3 doesn't know what it wants to be. It is supposedly taking place in a kingdom- Lothric- but we never really feel like we're in a land with its own traditions, culture, and dying peoples. Even DS2's Drangleic was much more vivid in its disappearance- it had unique qualities and its very nature dealt with memory, identity and brought a new meaning to the curse. DS3, even if deliberately, took the far simpler route of making almost everything about referencing the first Dark Souls. Perhaps From deliberately made Lothric generic and uninspired (with no central ideology or idea to uphold, nor some goal) to emphasize its place as the end of the cycle, but that wasn't developed very well. It meanders between the idea of Lothric as its own kingdom and Lothric as a generic setpiece for the end of the cycle. Places in Lothric do not interact with one another, they're disjointed.
Bloodborne is... nothing short of incredible, when it comes to lore and world design. It starts in a xenophobic city obsessed with blood, and ends in the playing ground of incomprehensible forces. There's a plague, there's the mightmare, there's the dream. Ingame factions conflict and interact, and their influence on Yharnam is revealed through everything the game has to offer (Cainhurst's opulence, Logarius, Djura, Upper Cathedral Ward...) and the nightmare twist is just the cherry on top.
The most profound difference is that Bloodborne is truly original, whereas Dark Souls 3 synthesizes Bloodborne and DS1-2 at best, is trapped in the shadow of previous Fromlikes at worst.
Bloodborne dared to focus. It decided it would be about speed in gameplay, cohesion in aesthetics. And it took these ideals of cohesion and aggression to the extreme- Blood Vials were drops to reward assault instead of dashing through, rallying was designed to compensate for damage and hence let people stay away from lanterns for much longer. It decided two thirds of the game should take place in utter darkness, and built around that. (Admittedly, I'm not very pleased by the fact that three urban areas were back to back right at the beginning, and the darkness made everything look kind of samey after a while.)
I think that dedication's paid in spades. Trick weapons are an incredible concept. Almost any trick weapon would've been the standout in the arsenal of any Souls game, but here you can turn a cane into a whip, switch weapons, and fire a bullet from a sword- and it's almost normal. Enemies, while overwrought in detail, are almost all very satisfying to fight and Kin/Beast enemy classes work better than the bajillion status effects in any Dark Souls. The lack of equip load works very well in tandem with the sheer amount of classy and irresistible armor sets, from suits to gowns to breastplates.
Dark Souls 3 has some amazing weapons as well- Friede's Scythe comes to mind, as it might single-handedly make me go through NG+ in a year or so. But 60 types of swords aren't as memorable as the Saw Cleaver or Ludwig's Holy Blade.
And let's talk lore and setting.
Dark Souls 3 doesn't know what it wants to be. It is supposedly taking place in a kingdom- Lothric- but we never really feel like we're in a land with its own traditions, culture, and dying peoples. Even DS2's Drangleic was much more vivid in its disappearance- it had unique qualities and its very nature dealt with memory, identity and brought a new meaning to the curse. DS3, even if deliberately, took the far simpler route of making almost everything about referencing the first Dark Souls. Perhaps From deliberately made Lothric generic and uninspired (with no central ideology or idea to uphold, nor some goal) to emphasize its place as the end of the cycle, but that wasn't developed very well. It meanders between the idea of Lothric as its own kingdom and Lothric as a generic setpiece for the end of the cycle. Places in Lothric do not interact with one another, they're disjointed.
Bloodborne is... nothing short of incredible, when it comes to lore and world design. It starts in a xenophobic city obsessed with blood, and ends in the playing ground of incomprehensible forces. There's a plague, there's the mightmare, there's the dream. Ingame factions conflict and interact, and their influence on Yharnam is revealed through everything the game has to offer (Cainhurst's opulence, Logarius, Djura, Upper Cathedral Ward...) and the nightmare twist is just the cherry on top.
Bloodborne (it's my joint favourite game ever with Old Hunters). Greatly prefer the art style, thought it had far better bosses, better levels and the combat is far more down my ally than DS3.
Bloodborne has an awesome campaign and meele combat style,but lacks build variety,playstyle variety,it has lackluster covenants and PvP mechanics.Chalice dungeons were a good challenge,but lacked in design as compared to the main campaign.
DS3 excells in many of the things that Bloodborne lacks. It has the best boss fights in the series too
DS3 excells in many of the things that Bloodborne lacks. It has the best boss fights in the series too
I don't like Dark Souls 3 with its blatant fan service pandering and creatively bankrupt... everything. As much as I'm not a fan of all the streamlining in Bloodborne compared to the earlier games, it's a completely fresh setting with some new ideas, which gets it the nod from me.
I don't think either game represents the top of the series though; that's Dark Souls and Demon's Souls (the latter of which you really shouldn't ignore). The Souls games don't have amazing combat, and that's not what I play them for. I really couldn't care less about the extra polish in the later entries when they downgrade everything else.
I don't think either game represents the top of the series though; that's Dark Souls and Demon's Souls (the latter of which you really shouldn't ignore). The Souls games don't have amazing combat, and that's not what I play them for. I really couldn't care less about the extra polish in the later entries when they downgrade everything else.
Dark Souls 3. It's a much more challenging game than Bloodborne. I prefer DS3 combat to Bloodborne combat. The build variety is much greater. The environs are much more varied than Bloodbornes. It's a longer game.
I love both of them but DS3, to me, is clearly the better game.
I love both of them but DS3, to me, is clearly the better game.
This pretty much sums up how I feel especially after beat Dark Souls Remastered
Yeah dude, I loved when they ripped off Demon's Souls for literally no reason in that one boss fight. Or how it featured the fifth poisoned swamp level in the series. Or how every memorable moment in the game was a reference to something else. Based Miyazaki really pulled out all the stops for Dark Souls 3.
I prefer Bloodborne mostly due to its art direction and its more fast-paced, aggressive combat that is made all the more interesting the mechanics like trick weapons and rallying.
That said, I still adore DS3 just like any other Souls game and believe it to be the most consistent in terms of good quality compared to every other From game. It's good all the way through whereas there are points in Dark Souls and Bloodborne when there are drops in quality. Steep drops, at that.
So? It's still Bloodborne. I don't get the point you're trying to make.
That said, I still adore DS3 just like any other Souls game and believe it to be the most consistent in terms of good quality compared to every other From game. It's good all the way through whereas there are points in Dark Souls and Bloodborne when there are drops in quality. Steep drops, at that.
So? It's still Bloodborne. I don't get the point you're trying to make.
Last edited:
Bloodborne was a phenomenal game and had some of the smoothest combat I've played. That being said, DS3 wins out for me with a large margin. I just had too many issues with Bloodborne that I didn't have with DS3. The entire potion mechanic in Bloodborne was one of the worst things I've ever played (if you're having trouble in this boss, just go and farm up 20 more vials!) and it didn't have nearly enough weapon selection (not counting DLC, as I haven't played either game's DLC). The bosses, for the most part, were also pretty forgettable (minus last boss (you know what I mean) and a few others spaced throughout). I also wanted to kill myself running through the last few chalice dungeons. Artificial difficulty really pisses me off.
DS3 wasn't a perfect game, but it's definitely the favourite in the series for me. Nameless King was one of the best boss fights I've played in gaming, the final boss himself was great, the questlines were interesting and I just really enjoyed the combat. The one major gripe I have with the game is that it's too linear (same problem with Bloodborne). I really enjoyed the "travel wherever you want to" feel in DS1 and DS2, yet in DS3 the very first thing you need to do, is use a bonfire to teleport somewhere. That really took me out of the game. And the first area is a serious chore to get through, especially in other play-throughs.
DS3 wasn't a perfect game, but it's definitely the favourite in the series for me. Nameless King was one of the best boss fights I've played in gaming, the final boss himself was great, the questlines were interesting and I just really enjoyed the combat. The one major gripe I have with the game is that it's too linear (same problem with Bloodborne). I really enjoyed the "travel wherever you want to" feel in DS1 and DS2, yet in DS3 the very first thing you need to do, is use a bonfire to teleport somewhere. That really took me out of the game. And the first area is a serious chore to get through, especially in other play-throughs.
Bloodborne's first playthrough is amazing. Probably the best in the series. After that it loses the magic quite a bit. Areas are samey, weapons/armor are limited, the game peaks early on in terms of difficulty. Chalice dungeons are dogshit.
Dark Souls 3 has the best difficulty balance and end game in the series. It's a "best of" game that integrates things from every previous title, sometimes to it's own detriment.
So yeah, first playthrough Bloodborne, every following playthrough Dark Souls 3.
Dark Souls 3 has the best difficulty balance and end game in the series. It's a "best of" game that integrates things from every previous title, sometimes to it's own detriment.
So yeah, first playthrough Bloodborne, every following playthrough Dark Souls 3.
put a Sony Exclusive stamp in DS3 and suddenly you another game of the generation
DS3 will always feel like a game caught in between retaining its souls tropes and trying to be Bloodborne, it's very good but the last part leads to a fair amount of frustration with me in how it approaches certain bosses/combat, healing and movement.
When it's at its hardest it almost feels like it's because they forgot that they weren't using the mechanics that make bloodborne's more aggressive combat work but did it anyway.
Bloodborne has the more cohesive level structure (probably the closest From got to giving a DS1 style world even if it's still a fair ways off), better combat, mostly better bosses and the better DLC to boot, yep it's BB for me.
When it's at its hardest it almost feels like it's because they forgot that they weren't using the mechanics that make bloodborne's more aggressive combat work but did it anyway.
Bloodborne has the more cohesive level structure (probably the closest From got to giving a DS1 style world even if it's still a fair ways off), better combat, mostly better bosses and the better DLC to boot, yep it's BB for me.
Bloodborne. Better art, better music, better gameplay. The only con is that I wish there were more of it. But tbh, after replaying DS1, BB's supposed lack of content seems way overblown. DS2 and DS3 may have a lot of "stuff" but most of it is complete nonsense.
DS3 is good, even if uninspired. Probably the best "Dark Souls" game (not as good as DeS though). It can even look really good at times. But the gameplay is a step back from BB. None of the weapons feel really great to use. And the game can never decide if it wants to be fast like BB or slow and deliberate like DS1. The gameplay feels unbalanced and unfair as a result.
DS3 is good, even if uninspired. Probably the best "Dark Souls" game (not as good as DeS though). It can even look really good at times. But the gameplay is a step back from BB. None of the weapons feel really great to use. And the game can never decide if it wants to be fast like BB or slow and deliberate like DS1. The gameplay feels unbalanced and unfair as a result.
Last edited:
I love the replay value of BB for different builds as well, honestly. I've beaten in 3 times now, though i think I am done now. The game has been conquered.
Dark Souls III is an incredibly unbalanced bore. It felt like they were making a Bloodborne sequel, then halfway through they decided to make a Dark Souls sequel and didn't have time to balance it. Playing as a slow build at launch was one of the worst things I've ever had to endure.
Bloodborne is great. The only issue I have is it's way too easy (I counted two deaths on my first playthrough) and lack of build variety.
Bloodborne is great. The only issue I have is it's way too easy (I counted two deaths on my first playthrough) and lack of build variety.
Bloodborne. Dark Souls 3 is the definition of an iterative sequel which has most elements retained from Dark Souls 1 but not the fully intertwined map. The lore of 3 doesn't feel as authentic because it is too often formulaic and while the same is true for bloodborne the context is too similar to DkS1 here so as a canonical continuation it feels cheap.
The combat in Dark Souls 3 tries to pour in a lot of Bloodborne's QoL and faster combat but it feels so loose and stiff in comparison and it feels bloated by trying to be both like Dark Souls and Bloodborne at the same time.
Bloodborne suffers from being too streamlined imho but it feels much more authentic and full of intent and its moments whether we're talking bosses or story feel so original next to DkS3's.
Bloodborne was an evolution.
Dark Souls 3 is an iteration. It suffers from that granting it a sense of being more of a diminishing return instead of the next step in Souls.
The combat in Dark Souls 3 tries to pour in a lot of Bloodborne's QoL and faster combat but it feels so loose and stiff in comparison and it feels bloated by trying to be both like Dark Souls and Bloodborne at the same time.
Bloodborne suffers from being too streamlined imho but it feels much more authentic and full of intent and its moments whether we're talking bosses or story feel so original next to DkS3's.
Bloodborne was an evolution.
Dark Souls 3 is an iteration. It suffers from that granting it a sense of being more of a diminishing return instead of the next step in Souls.
Bloodborne
+ Setting
+ Art design
+ Story
+ Good evolution of "Souls" gameplay
- Repetitive boss design
- Minimal character customization
- Chalice dungeons
Dark Souls 3
+ Excellent culmination/ending of Souls story
+ Level design
+ Varied boss design
+ Good character customization
- Minimal evolution on core gameplay
- Franchise fatigue
They both have strengths and weaknesses.
Bloodborne is a fantastic setting and story. It's engaging, interesting, and fun to explore that world. The gameplay has been mixed up nicely. I actually don't think it's "fast", however the lack of shielding and the reliance on dodges/parries is technical and engaging. On the downside, bosses are overly reliant on the "huge character > large forward sweep" paradigm and that gets tiring. Worse is that outside the early game and a few late game/DLC bosses, Bloodborne is relatively easy compared to other Souls games. The game also has some horrible design decisions, including minimal character customization/itemization and the Chalice dungeons (barf).
Dark Souls 3 suffers from franchise fatigue and retreads old ground. However it also does a fantastic job of providing a compelling finish to the Souls story. If you have any emotional investment in Souls and the flame and the sun, DS3 does justice to that.
DS3 also has, imo, the best boss design in the series. It took all the right lessons from Bloodborne without falling into the same pitfalls of repetitive design. The return to Souls gameplay design is either a comfort or a drawback, depending on how much you loved Bloodborne's new approach to dodging/parries. Personally I think DS3 is slightly too safe in not evolving its core gameplay. However it does outdo Bloodborne in returning to deep/varied character customization, namely with armor sets and rings.
I like both. I think they stand on the same ground from a design standpoint: the gameplay engine to the level and boss design sensibilities. Which you prefer is largely, imo, which setting you're into and whether you prefer Bloodborne's faster dodging vs DS3's more methodical approach. In that sense, I don't think one is objectively better than the other while both are subjectively excellent games.
+ Setting
+ Art design
+ Story
+ Good evolution of "Souls" gameplay
- Repetitive boss design
- Minimal character customization
- Chalice dungeons
Dark Souls 3
+ Excellent culmination/ending of Souls story
+ Level design
+ Varied boss design
+ Good character customization
- Minimal evolution on core gameplay
- Franchise fatigue
They both have strengths and weaknesses.
Bloodborne is a fantastic setting and story. It's engaging, interesting, and fun to explore that world. The gameplay has been mixed up nicely. I actually don't think it's "fast", however the lack of shielding and the reliance on dodges/parries is technical and engaging. On the downside, bosses are overly reliant on the "huge character > large forward sweep" paradigm and that gets tiring. Worse is that outside the early game and a few late game/DLC bosses, Bloodborne is relatively easy compared to other Souls games. The game also has some horrible design decisions, including minimal character customization/itemization and the Chalice dungeons (barf).
Dark Souls 3 suffers from franchise fatigue and retreads old ground. However it also does a fantastic job of providing a compelling finish to the Souls story. If you have any emotional investment in Souls and the flame and the sun, DS3 does justice to that.
DS3 also has, imo, the best boss design in the series. It took all the right lessons from Bloodborne without falling into the same pitfalls of repetitive design. The return to Souls gameplay design is either a comfort or a drawback, depending on how much you loved Bloodborne's new approach to dodging/parries. Personally I think DS3 is slightly too safe in not evolving its core gameplay. However it does outdo Bloodborne in returning to deep/varied character customization, namely with armor sets and rings.
I like both. I think they stand on the same ground from a design standpoint: the gameplay engine to the level and boss design sensibilities. Which you prefer is largely, imo, which setting you're into and whether you prefer Bloodborne's faster dodging vs DS3's more methodical approach. In that sense, I don't think one is objectively better than the other while both are subjectively excellent games.
Last edited:
There are things I really love about both. BB can actually be too dark and drab for me at times, whereas DS always has those moments of beautiful vistas. Too close to call for me.
Dark Souls III. Far more depth to the gameplay. Multiple weapon types, shields, ranged weapons, magic, weapon arts.
The gun sucks ass in Bloodborne. And you have to farm bullets and blood vials, and it sucks.
The gun sucks ass in Bloodborne. And you have to farm bullets and blood vials, and it sucks.