Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Maybe my formatting is off, but it's listed as a public screenshot.
The creatures around the statue clearly resemble Messengers from Bloodborne. It's a really neat tie-in, demonstrating that Elden Ring is a Soulsborne game, and it reminds me of how much I loved playing Bloodborne. I can't be the only one in the community that saw that and felt that way, so I figured I'd share.
I don't think I'll ever argue to someone that any one game is worth purchasing a specific console. I definitely won't change that stance now.
What I will say is that Bloodborne is my favourite Soulsborne game and, quite likely, my favourite game, period. The aesthetic and atmosphere really just does it for me, along with all of the weapons having viability due to the difference in movesets,* the boss fights being unqiue and memorable (even the Witch of Hemick has teeth on NG+ if you get caught and aren't overlevelled), and the absence of covenants having a PvP focus actually serves the lore. It's all truly fantastic.
The only annoyances I found were the poor implementation of Chalice Dungeons (but worth it due to some unique bosses that genuinely serve the game's lore), the Bloodtinge stat being relegated to an off-hand focus where it wasn't an outright gimmick, and the Arcane stat being both convoluted and tied to all Hunter Tools in such a way that the player may not use them.
The last two in particular are odd problems, given that very few main-hand weapons scale meaningfully with Arcane and Bloodtinge in such a way that the player won't want to build toward them in a NG run. Arcane scaling does nothing without elemental weapon damage and on non-elemental weapons this requires chaging/grinding runes. Bloodtinge has only two main-hand weapons that can do bloodtinge damage, Chikage and Bloodletter, with Bloodletter being a DLC weapon. They're not at the level of Blueblood Sword, but they certainly don't feel like good options for a NG run unless the player knows enough and wants to try something new.
Those annoyances are genuinely minor, more like missed opportunities, and how few there are make Bloodborne truly stand out in a positive way. Should you get the chance, it's definitely worth playing.
___
*Sure, there's always a genuine 'best' min-maxy thing sommewhere
Even exclusive games such as Master Chief collection, Horizon Zero Dawn and many other games that were exclusive are now on PC but BB dont . . . I saw gameplay and it seem a thing between Sekiro and Dark Souls, may be fun but seemed far too overrated.
Ok, I may be wrong and if it ever come to PC and I ever purchase it (at a very good sale) I may see if I am wrong or not (like what happened when I played DS3, purchased on sale and after beating it I saw it was not underrated but an amazing game worth the full price, was my first souls game too)
Sometimes watching gameplay isn't enough to do a game justice, it's the feel of playing with the mechanics that does it. Bloodborne is very mechanically solid and, in my experience, the least bloated and most mechanically focused title. There's very little superfluous content in that game, including the Chalice Dungeons (outside of the Root Chalices) that have an important lore focus.
I definitely wouldn't argue that someone pay more than $20 for the game and I'd argue that it's worth that. Very, very few games are worth more than $40 given the direction game development's taken since the early 2000's and I'd argue that it's often the indie games that bring the best value. Bloodborne would be worth a $60 to me, but objectively I'd put it at a fair $20 -the same with every SoulsBorne title.
All that said, Dark Souls III was your first introduction into the Soulsborne series and maybe holds a special meaning. For me it was Demon's Souls and Bloodborne.
I'd not played anything like Demon's Souls before when it was released on the PS3 and I spent a long time getting handled by Flamelurker, going so far as Large Purple Flame Shield in order to poke at it from behind. Each time I came back to that game I played with less armour and less turtle until I just rolled a Wandered and went at things with no shield and a claymore with a Quality build.
A year after Bloodborne came out (#patientgamers) and I was able to get it on sale, I jumped in and instantly felt at home. Everything just jumped out at me in the right way, except for Laurence the First Vicar in Phase 2, and I really enjoyed how tight and focused it was, how it fast but grounded the combat was. I tried different things with each NG run and it always just felt good.
Going naked with just the weapon I could beat the boss in some 4 to 6 tries and every try felt better, Abyss Watchers taught me to play Dark Souls 3 and all the other souls games, rely on dodge and positioning and to trust myself to dodge everything.
I did not understand at first but I noticed I was dodging a onger distance and faster and I also noticed later that I was not getting hit even when the weapon was "getting through" the character body, so I understood iframes (yes, I did not check wiki, videos or forum for anything, also played solo with no one to explain me anything, so I figure out every mechanic and stuff by myself on my first run and I did not knew how powerful dodge was).
If it never gets remastered or anything, it just might go down as one of the biggest travesties in gaming...ever.
It's more a Sony thing, from what I can tell, but mainly a money thing for publishers and console makers. It's a bigger conversation that kind of derails the thread, so I'll leave it at this bit.
We have so many examples, especially in the past 20 years, of the video game industry demonstrating a genuine lack of care for the history of the medium. Many of us love it and grew up with it, whether we're in our 30s, 40s, or 50s, and that's undoubtedly a few million people that grew up alongside video games in some meaningful way and still play. But that's not the same as the tens of millions who play casually. Casual play is 100% fine and it's not the fault of casual players that companies want to consistently make all of the money instead of a good, healthy profit.
Video Game companies that hold a lot of our nostalgia or impactful newer games are too often large companies that don't see much value in preserving their legacy or spending, say, 50 million to make 65 million -they want to spend 50 million to make 100 million, at least. These numbers are just rough, ballpark values, however I think the point carries. Or video game companies have lost the code, rights, or what have you because of the way video games were looked at as 'mere products' or 'toys', with no future value assigned to them and sometimes the way companies folded or were purchased led to lack of attention to what was going on. Or some companies are just like Nintendo and we can look at where all the Nintendon't memes come from with near perfect clarity.
Simply put, it comes down to wanting to maximise profit instead of making a good, healthy profit, a general lack of care for the history of the medium, and/or a general lack of care/attention to the games in question.
As much as I would love to play Bloodborne again and buy a PS4 Pro on the cheap...well, I know I can't have all the experiences all the time.
When I had video game consoles I'd been in the position to spend real money on repurchasing games that I had at one point and then lost access to, sometimes even at around $250 for 1 title. At the time it was worth it to me, however from the PS3-era onward it just didn't make sense due to the lack of backward compatibility. I still remember the email response I received from Sony asking why they removed the chips that allowed backward compatibility in the early PS3s: to push current-gen games. For a few years I spitefully pushed on despite that and it took awhile to see what I was missing: some genuine blockbuster titles and a treasure trove of indie games.
I'd love to play Bloodborne again and I'd totally buy it for $60 if it came to PC because it means that much to me and I'm also content to have memories of the game, to remember how good it felt to play and enjoy the connexions it makes to other games. It's cool for me to let it be a part of my history and, at the same time, it's very not cool for the video game industry to genuinely not care about their history. Asking for Bloodborne to be remastered and/or ported isn't the same thing as asking ClayFighter to be remastered and/or ported. But maybe I'm just old.
id love to play it on PC