From Software Elden Ring - From Software's new game with writing by GRRM

[Lyric Suite]

I think the point @Child of Malkav is tryin to make is that Bloodborne has a more cohesive system in place, where the player is given a comprehensive set of tools to counter whatever the enemies throws at him. DS3 on the other hand feels a bit schizo in that devs took the super aggressive enemies and crowds from BB without adjusting the tools at the player's disposal. The parrying is a good example: in BB it's fast, safe and long range (guns) while in DS3 parrying feels so fucking slow and laggy that's a much less effective tool, making everybody rely on that shitty barrel rolling spam instead.

Long range parries are only viable in PvP or fighting NPC hunters to punish healing and a couple of special actions, in PvE shot parries are performed from a short distance 95% of the time. DS3 provides as much tools to deal with enemies as BB does. There's fast parries with smaller shields, and you already mentioned rolling, which works the same way in BB as well.

I never played BB but my impression of DS3 is that they tired to make a Dark Souls game out of a system (that of Bloodborne) that wasn't designed for it. I still liked DS3 a great deal and i thought the boss design at least was slick as hell. But the way poise and hyperarmor worked for instance just didn't feel right to me. The fact you could wear literal slabs of stone and feel like you were wearing paper unless you were swinging was just illogical. Also, it's annoying R1 spamming was basically all you needed to do.

Elden Ring, as far as i'm concerned, actually fixed some of those issues and implemented some of those mechanics in a way that feels more organic. Also, armor feels like armor again. Poise is back now and the defences of the armor actually make a difference, especially the resistances. Physical defences are still a bit underwhelming (vitality is still king over defence) but you can actually feel it when you have a lot of it. In Dark Souls 3, it didn't really matter how much defence you had. It literally meant nothing. All that mattered is that you had all the armor slots filled with something.

 

[Multidirectional]

I wish this game was structured same way as Dark Souls games, then I would be much more inclined to replay it and get a lot better at it. Open world eventually kills my will to do so every time I try. It's actually easier for me to replay my least favorite in series Dark Souls III.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

I never played BB

I'd say it's almost worth buying a used PS4 to experience it. It plays a tiny bit better on PS5 but not enough to warrant the extra money. Sony is retarded, I wouldn't bother waiting for a proper remaster or remake. There's a good chance it will never happen.

 

[Multidirectional]

Yeah it's worth buying a console so you could play below 30 FPS and with atrocious aliasing. It looks terrible on PS4 from what I saw.

 

[Terenty]

Bloodborne felt like a downgrade to me after DS1. A stripped down DS1, if you will, with no builds and easy bosses that went down after a couple tries.

Story was even more nonsensical than DS, with no clear goal, which resulted in me just going from place to place like a tourist having no idea what the fuck was going on and who were all those monstrosities I had to put down.

I mean it was a high quality game, no doubt, but I can't see it's masterpiece status. I feel like people fell for its edgy aesthetics more than anything else.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

Yeah it's worth buying a console so you could play below 30 FPS and with atrocious aliasing. It looks terrible on PS4 from what I saw.

Technically it looks and plays a little worse than Dark Souls 3 on consoles but artistically speaking it's FS's most beautiful game. I don't think Elden Ring beats it but it's subjective. As far as aesthetics go I think it's their most beautiful game. I don't remember the framerate being a major problem if you're somewhat accustomed to 30 fps games. It's perfectly playable and looks great. The load times were the major issue and I heard they were improved. By how much I can't say.

 

[Silva]

Terenty , no builds in BB? Are you sure you played the game?

At the very least each Stat equals a build, and then there's the hybrids like Dex-Arc, Str-Arc, Dex-Bld, Str-Bld, Str-Dex, etc. And THEN there's the weapon specializations where you pick just the exact spread based on specific weapons scalings. So the same Str-Arc can go 70-30 to maximize (say) Amy's Arm damage with some light supportive tools on the side, or the reversal 30-70 for heavy tool using with some support Amy Arm on the side, etc.

That's a ton of variations, bro.

 

[Silva]

Yeah it's worth buying a console so you could play below 30 FPS and with atrocious aliasing. It looks terrible on PS4 from what I saw.

Technically it looks and plays a little worse than Dark Souls 3 on consoles but artistically speaking it's FS's most beautiful game. I don't think Elden Ring beats it but it's subjective. As far as aesthetics go I think it's their most beautiful game. I don't remember the framerate being a major problem if you're somewhat accustomed to 30 fps games. It's perfectly playable and looks great. The load times were the major issue and I heard they were improved. By how much I can't say.

Don't know about being beautiful, but Bloodborne is certainly From most impressive ambience and overall atmosphere. Stepping on those Yharnam cobblestones for the first time is mesmerizing. Up there with entering STALKER's Zone, System Shock 2 Von Braun or Deus ex UNATCO headquarters for the first time. Every immersionist gamer owes it to him/herself to experience Yharnam at least once.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Bloodborne felt like a downgrade to me after DS1. A stripped down DS1, if you will, with no builds and easy bosses that went down after a couple tries.

Story was even more nonsensical than DS, with no clear goal, which resulted in me just going from place to place like a tourist having no idea what the fuck was going on and who were all those monstrosities I had to put down.

I mean it was a high quality game, no doubt, but I can't see it's masterpiece status. I feel like people fell for its edgy aesthetics more than anything else.

Bloodborne amplified the action elements of Souls games while reducing the role-playing aspects, crossing the boundary from Action RPG to action game with RPG elements. Still a well-made game, but it always irritates me when people use the "Soulsborne" term, giving equal weight to this deviation from the formula with Demon's/Dark Souls. It also adversely affected Dark Souls III, which was something of an attempt at compromise between the earlier Souls games and the greater action-orientation of Bloodborne, though I discovered when I belatedly played it that it wasn't as close to Bloodborne as many had made it out to be.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

Yeah it's worth buying a console so you could play below 30 FPS and with atrocious aliasing. It looks terrible on PS4 from what I saw.

Technically it looks and plays a little worse than Dark Souls 3 on consoles but artistically speaking it's FS's most beautiful game. I don't think Elden Ring beats it but it's subjective. As far as aesthetics go I think it's their most beautiful game. I don't remember the framerate being a major problem if you're somewhat accustomed to 30 fps games. It's perfectly playable and looks great. The load times were the major issue and I heard they were improved. By how much I can't say.

Don't know about being beautiful, but Bloodborne is certainly From most impressive ambience and overall atmosphere. Stepping on those Yharnam cobblestones for the first time is mesmerizing. Up there with entering STALKER's Zone, System Shock 2 Von Braun or Deus ex UNATCO headquarters for the first time. Every immersionist gamer owes it to him/herself to experience Yharnam at least once.

It's so impressive that DkS3 shamelessly ripped an entire section from it, and did it worse. "HAI GUYZ REMEMBER BLOODBORNE??!!". Fuck Dark Souls 3.

Bloodborne amplified the action elements of Souls games while reducing the role-playing aspects, crossing the boundary from Action RPG to action game with RPG elements. Still a well-made game, but it always irritates me when people use the "Soulsborne" term, giving equal weight to this deviation from the formula with Demon's/Dark Souls. It also adversely affected Dark Souls III, which was something of an attempt at compromise between the earlier Souls games and the greater action-orientation of Bloodborne, though I discovered when I belatedly played it that it wasn't as close to Bloodborne as many had made it out to be.

The reason the term "Soulsborne" exists is because it's one of the greatest games of the 21st century and one of FS's greatest games. That term exists for a fucking reason. It is absolutely better than Dark Souls 1.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

Lettuce be real. The ONLY reason why Dark Souls 1 is worshipped as much as it is is because most people didn't get to experience Demon's Souls first. If you went into it blind, fuck yeah, it's amazing. It you went into it after having already played Demon's Souls, it's not quite so amazing. It's still a great experience but not as great as playing through Demon's Souls for the first time.

Actually I'm gonna reel this argument in a bit. All of them are good-great. Chances are whichever one you played first will be your favorite because they're all different compared to everything else on the market. I'm a rare exception. Demon's Souls blew my mind like no other, but it's not my favorite, or 2nd favorite. I've had a long time to analyze all these games and I have a coherent objective structure. It goes like this:

Dark Souls 2>Bloodborne>Demon's Souls>Dark Souls>>>Elden Ring>>>>>>>>Sekiro>Dark Souls 3

 

[Silverfish]

no builds in BB?

Built a Rube Goldberg machine that turned my PS4 off.

 

[Silva]

Dark Souls 2>Bloodborne>Demon's Souls>Dark Souls>>>Elden Ring>>>>>>>>Sekiro>Dark Souls 3

I gave you a brofist for the statement but this tier list is terrible and putting DS2 ahead of DS1, BB and Sekiro is heresy. The Space Marines should be dispatched to your home ASAP.

 

[Machocruz]

Lettuce be real. The ONLY reason why Dark Souls 1 is worshipped as much as it is is because most people didn't get to experience Demon's Souls first. If you went into it blind, fuck yeah, it's amazing. It you went into it after having already played Demon's Souls, it's not quite so amazing. It's still a great experience but not as great as playing through Demon's Souls for the first time.

Actually I'm gonna reel this argument in a bit. All of them are good-great. Chances are whichever one you played first will be your favorite because they're all different compared to everything else on the market. I'm a rare exception. Demon's Souls blew my mind like no other, but it's not my favorite, or 2nd favorite. I've had a long time to analyze all these games and I have a coherent objective structure. It goes like this:

Dark Souls 2>Bloodborne>Demon's Souls>Dark Souls>>>Elden Ring>>>>>>>>Sekiro>Dark Souls 3

Dark Souls 1 is iconic, but so is DeS and I put more time into it. Not the best of the batch technically, but I'm not a gameplay purist and DeS' atmosphere is a king. Bosses were a complimentary dish, or a bit of spice, not the main entree. A lot of other stuff was more memorable, but things seem to have gone the other way for these Miyazaki games, people just jack off to talk about bosses.

And yes, by the average standard of this hobby, all of them are at least good. Problem is they pulled a Bethesda and threw the baby out with the bath water. So while DS3 is good as Fantasy Action Game, it had none of the interesting things that they brought with 2, and they didn't try to improve the good ideas in 2 that didn't quite work. It was a game that Todd Howard Muhzaki really didn't want to make, and I think really didn't need to be made. BB and Sekiro are great but are each their own things that offer very different experiences despite structural similarities.

 

[Skinwalker]

It was a game that Todd Howard Muhzaki really didn't want to make, and I think really didn't need to be made

Oh, fuck off, you pretentious twat. It's an exhilarating action RPG about killing thirty different varieties of zombies in eye-catching and memorable environments, not Citizen Kane or Casablanka.

It's a soft remake of DS1, and a fairly good one at that. Some things could be improved, but overall, a great iteration on a solid formula. Yes, Bloodborne and Sekiro take the formula on interesting detours, but without a mainline series like DS+ER it loses its identity.

 

[Machocruz]

Oh, fuck off, you pretentious twat. It's an exhilarating action RPG about killing thirty different varieties of zombies in eye-catching and memorable environments, not Citizen Kane or Casablanka.

It's a soft remake of DS1, and a fairly good one at that. Some things could be improved, but overall, a great iteration on a solid formula. Yes, Bloodborne and Sekiro take the formula on interesting detours, but without a mainline series like DS+ER it loses its identity.

Relax your perm. I said it was a good FAG . But it is said he didn't want to make it, and if its various half-baked features from previous DS are anything to go by, I believe it. And who needs a sequel like that? Might as well have called it something else or skipped right to Sekiro.

 

[Skinwalker]

And who needs a sequel like that?

I do.

It was a delightful experience, and there's not that many OG soulsgames to begin with. In fact, there's only been 7 of them over the past 15 years (not counting a remake and a remaster). And one of them (DS2) is widely acknowledged as a B-team effort that missed the mark by a country mile.

"It's a good game in general, but who needs it?!"

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

Dark Souls 2>Bloodborne>Demon's Souls>Dark Souls>>>Elden Ring>>>>>>>>Sekiro>Dark Souls 3

I gave you a brofist for the statement but this tier list is terrible and putting DS2 ahead of DS1, BB and Sekiro is heresy. The Space Marines should be dispatched to your home ASAP.

Dark Souls 2 is ahead of the rest because it managed to expand on the formula while simultaniously having it's own identity. It's the most complex game in the franchise (I don't give a single flying fuck what anyone has to say about that. IT'S FACT) and it managed to carve it's very own identity. From Demon's Souls to DkS2, each game had it's own unique atmosphere, and then we got Bloodborne which did it's own great thing. I don't think the order matters much. As long as you have Elden Ring, Sekiro, and DkS3 on the ass-end, you're good.

 

[Machocruz]

"It's a good game in general, but who needs it?!"

Wut? A game isn't a necessity, good or bad. Always something else to do or play. Anyway we agree it's a good game, it's just an expression of dissatisfaction with how they did things compared to the other games, not even a real question. Plus I don't have the biggest appetite for sequels to begin with (usually good after the second iteration), let alone ones that diverge too much from what I liked, so.

 

[Jinn]

Dark Souls 2 is ahead of the rest because it managed to expand on the formula while simultaniously having it's own identity. It's the most complex game in the franchise (I don't give a single flying fuck what anyone has to say about that. IT'S FACT) and it managed to carve it's very own identity. From Demon's Souls to DkS2, each game had it's own unique atmosphere, and then we got Bloodborne which did it's own great thing. I don't think the order matters much. As long as you have Elden Ring, Sekiro, and DkS3 on the ass-end, you're good.

Elden Ring is Dark Souls II-2 though. Part of why I love it so much.

Also, Sekiro is enough its own thing it shouldn't really even be included. And it certainly shouldn't be nestled up with Dark Souls III. I do agree DSIII should be last on the list though.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

Comparing FS with the likes of Bethesda should be considered treason btw. You go straight to hell for that.

 

[Machocruz]

So you were happy that Muhzaki ignored all the good ideas from your beloved DS2 while at the same time getting more praise for 3 from all the normies? Sounds like Bethesda-esque shit to me.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

People acting like I called Dark Souls 1 a piece of shit. You didn't notice how I used the greater than sign. I was basically saying the first 4 were all very close in quality. DkS1 ends up 4th because of the decline in quality in the later half which I already went over. 4th place is extremely generous.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

Also, Sekiro is enough its own thing it shouldn't really even be included.

This is a fair point. I probably shouldn't have bothered throwing it in there.

 

[Jinn]

Having played Bloodborne to completion for the first time a couple months ago, I'd definitely place Elden Ring above it, as a personal preference. I'm someone who values build variety and plentiful options above action gameplay though, so that's a big reason why. Also found the exploration in Elden Ring to be way more satisfying all around. Still a wonderful game though.