Bloodborne vs. the Souls games

Discussion in 'Console Games' started by Taustin Powers, Dec 6, 2015.

  1. Taustin Powers macrumors regular

    Apr 5, 2005
    So I have only really played Bloodborne so far. I have yet to finish it, but I am really enjoying it when I am not hating it...if that makes sense.

    My question is, how do the three Souls games that have come before compare to Bloodborne? What elements are similar, what is different? Which one of the three would I be most likely to enjoy? Cause I will never have enough time to play all of them. :D
  2. 2nyRiggz macrumors 603


    Aug 20, 2005
    Thank you Jah...I'm so Blessed
    The Souls games are slower and based on defense(shields) and a lot more magic. I think you will enjoy the souls games if you enjoy the lore and the challenge of Bloodborne.

  3. wchigo macrumors 6502


    Apr 6, 2015
    They all have some degree of similarity, but the "feel" is somewhat different.

    In Bloodborne, I found that the game often rewarded you for taking the initiative. Lots of times you are able to get up on an enemy and "burst" him down with a bunch of attacks before he can get a move off. This is greatly helped by that little dash move you can do when you lock on to an enemy and hit the 'O' button; it allows you to close the distance and has little recovery before you are able to attack. This is contrasted in the Souls games where hitting 'O' will make you roll, regardless of if you locked on or not (in Bloodborne, you only roll if you're not locked on.)

    Parrying also plays a larger role in Bloodborne due to the lack of a shield and your gun. I feel like the parrying is a little more forgiving as well, and is often the best way to take out certain types of enemies.

    In the Souls games, it tends to be a more methodical pace. As mentioned by 2nyRiggz, you have a shield and you are able to find shields that can block 100% of any physical damage, allowing you to turtle. However, you are unable to do so indefinitely as hits that are blocked will deplete your stamina and the amount is determined by numerous factors like the stability of the shield and the strength of your enemy. This can trivialize a lot of the encounters against smaller enemies and allow you a bit more leeway when fighting bosses, as you are able to buy a little more time to see what they are capable of. That being said, there are many bosses who can completely empty your stamina bar in 2-3 hits, so you aren't completely safe.

    There is also magic, which is done a bit differently in Demon's Souls compared to the Dark Souls games, but that can completely change things up as well. It can basically be an entirely different play style and you can either base your entire character off of it to be a spell caster, or just use it to enhance your character in different ways (healing spells, buff your weapon/defense, etc.)

    I would say that if you enjoyed Bloodborne, you should give the Souls games a try if you are at all interested. I never got that far into Demon's Souls but I have spent close to 200 hours on Dark Souls (PC version) and got all the achievements, got all the trophies in Dark Souls 2 (PS3 version) and also got all the trophies in Bloodborne and am contemplating when I should buy the DLC. I would say Bloodborne is the more "streamlined" version of a Souls game but you are more restricted in the ways you can build a character, whereas the Souls games gives you far more variety and, to many, more replayability since there are many more ways you can build a character and find one that fits your style.
  4. Taustin Powers thread starter macrumors regular

    Apr 5, 2005
    Awesome, lots of info - thanks!

    Are the Souls games pretty similar to each other? Dark Souls vs. Dark Souls 2?

    I may just end up waiting for DS3 to come out and play that. My gaming time is so limited these days, that maybe I should just get the newest one and benefit from the most modern technology.
  5. wchigo macrumors 6502


    Apr 6, 2015
    Always glad to help. If it wasn't evident in my post above, I can go on and on about the Souls games.

    Thematically, the three Souls games are quite similar to one another. However, each one has its own subtle differences. For instance, in Demon's Souls the amount of magic you can cast is limited by your MP and one of the classes starts you off with an item that allows you to regenerate your MP, albeit at a fairly slow rate; you also find consumable items that you can use in order to replenish your MP faster if required.

    In the Dark Souls games, the amount of magic you can cast is limited by the "stock" of a particular spell. A simple spell similar to a magic missile may allow 30 casts before it needs to be recharged, but a stronger version of that spell may only allow 12 casts before it needs to be recharged. You regain charges when you rest at a bonfire, similar to the lamps in Bloodborne, and in Dark Souls 2 they added consumables that replenish charges.

    Healing items are consumables in Demon's Souls, similar to Blood Vials, whereas it is once again a permanent item with a set amount of charges in Dark Souls 1 & 2 that is replenished when you rest at a bonfire.

    Aside from that, there are subtle but noticeable differences between the two if you spend enough time with them. Many people felt the character to be a bit more sluggish in 2 and they made some changes to the speed at which you heal (almost instantly in 1 vs a gradual increase in 2) making it tougher to just keep attacking and heal through the damage.

    A big part of the appeal of Dark Souls 1 is that the world felt interconnected. You would start in one area, make your way into another and by the end you've looped around back to the initial area but through a door that you couldn't open previously. In Dark Souls 2, you meet a lot of dead ends and for some it seemed more like FROM Software wanted to make interesting environments more than an interconnected world. In that sense, I feel like Bloodborne takes its cues moreso from Dark Souls 1. The director for Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne and the upcoming Dark Souls 3 is Hidetaka Miyazaki, and he is often credited as being the one behind trying to make the "world" so interconnected. Since Dark Souls 2 was being developed at the same time as Bloodborne, it lacked that and many people would often dismiss it as being made by the "B" team.

    Of course the differences above are far from being all-encompassing, but I'll stop there for fear of droning on way too much. If you have the ability to, I would suggest maybe looking into giving Dark Souls 1 a shot. Demon's Souls is a PS3 exclusive and shows its age a bit more than any of the other games, in my opinion. You can often find the PC version of Dark Souls on sale for around $5 and I think it's a great value for what you might get out of it. It's a lot cheaper than what you can find Dark Souls 2 for, and you can put the money you saved towards 3.:D
  6. Dagless macrumors Core


    Jan 18, 2005
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    I've got Dark Souls for my PS3 but haven't properly played it yet, amongst my fans into the series they all say DS1 is their favourite. I'm hoping for a PS4 version but if it doesn't happen I'll just play it on PS3 instead.

    From what I've played though it seems Dark Souls take part in a much larger world, whilst Bloodborne is just in one big town.
  7. Taustin Powers thread starter macrumors regular

    Apr 5, 2005
    Bloodborne is a little more than just one town. Can't compare it DS though, cause I haven't played it yet.

    Bought Dark Souls 1 Prepare to Die Edition for PS3 today, for 20€. Still busy with Bloodborne, but when I finish it, I'll play DS1 until DS3 comes down in price.

Share This Page