PixlBit

Generally, I'd agree too. They're more minor annoyances that are likely amplified for Souls veterans only. Overall, they didn't impede my enjoyment much, but I think those changes would've definitely streamlined the experience.

If you enjoyed BB, you should definitely take a stab at Dark Souls 3. I think you'd enjoy that as well. There's some subtext to the story/lore that you'll miss and some of the moments that are surprising and awesome won't strike you quite the same, but it's a very solid game that draws quite a bit of influence from the design decisions of BB.

Hahaha, I figured you were going to tell me that. I remember your review of the game gushing over all the Lovecraft references. I don't hate it or anything, I'm just not into the whole Lovecraft thing. I do think they built a really cohesive world and story though. There's a lot less ambiguity than in the Souls games and putting all of the pieces together has been intriguing at least. I also agree that they did a good job setting you up to believe that you understood the world, but then pulling the carpet from beneath you and showing you that there's so much more. As you get toward the end of the game you start to realize just how much was hidden in plain sight.

The DLC does do a good job of bringing some weapon/build variety, but as you said, by the time you get that stuff it's basically useless. If I ever go at NG+, I'll have to give some new weapons a shot. I've ran the whole game with the stupid Hunter's Axe and frankly I'm sick of using it.

I would agree that Dark Souls 3 felt safer than Bloodborne, but I think that it did a number of things that made me really love it. I think it mined all of the good stuff from Bloodborne. I think it encouraged playing less defensively, though still made shields useful (I know you disagree, but mine came in handy for numerous boss fights where I could tank a hit if necessary - especially the GD Nameless King). It also took a cue on enemy designs and made them much more interesting than in past Souls games. Additionally they did a much better job of making the world feel more alive (just like it feels in BB). I think that a lot of the lore/story from DS3 is pretty phenomenal and does a great job of making all 3 games in the series feel cohesive.

My only real complaints with DS3 are the invasions and the covenants. You are constantly walking into a fucking gank squad when you invade and that sucks. The covenants work better by making them equippable items, but half of them just don't work. Maybe they've patched it and made some of them more functional, but I gave up on the Blue Sentinels and the Watchdogs of Farron after NEVER ONCE getting summoned. The Aldritch Faithful dealt with the same gank squad bullshit as well, so that was a miserable waste of time.

As far as Bloodborne 2 or DS4 - I wouldn't mind either. There's something very comfortable and familiar about the Dark Souls world and I just like being in it, moreso than Bloodborne. But I think that being that there's only one Bloodborne, there's more potential for variety and growth. I do wonder what Miyazaki has in mind for the Sci-Fi Souls game (because BB is kind of sci-fi, if you think about it) and I also hope he explores that concept.

I hear you - my complaints are really just trivial gripes in the end. I love Bloodborne just like I love all the Souls games. The offensive play style of Bloodborne definitely clicked for me. Once I went through Oolacile and fought Artorias and Manus, I realized that the slow turtle approach has its limitations. By and large, I found that sparingly using a shield was much more effective (for me) than hiding behind it, like I had done in my first playthrough of Dark Souls. Since then I've found myself playing all of the games in generally the same style as Bloodborne forces.

Which leads into your other point about Bloodborne feeling like a step between something new and something old. I generally felt it was actually not new feeling at all (outside of the lore/world). Basically the game chooses your build for you and forces a certain play style. Outside of the trick weapons, it's basically like playing a Souls game with a quality build and two-handing your weapon/only using your shield for parries.

I'm open for something new as well - as long as we get solid mechanics that have some weight and great level design, I'll be happy. Nioh looks cool, I wish I didn't miss the alpha. I downloaded it, but didn't realize it was only open for a limited time. Hopefully they do a beta or something because I'd love to try it out.

I'm definitely on board with the franchise shake-ups, not sure I'm all that happy about the console generation shake-up that Microsoft demonstrated with Scorpio. It feels very much like the end of console gaming and likely a move that can easily start bifurcating the Xbox One ecosystem. I know MS paid some lip service to the fact that there'd be no Scorpio exclusives, but I expect that will eventually cease to be true and likely sooner rather than later.

I also expect that the PS4 will see a similar ecosystem when the Neo comes in. I understand that much of this is driven by a desire to compete in the VR market, but I think it's going to have some lasting impacts in the way business is done in the console gaming market and might actually be a signal of the end.

I think my biggest frustration is that they are releasing updated systems when I feel very much like the generation has still yet to take off. I kind of want to shake someone and tell them to get back to making damn games and stop worrying about the dick measuring contest with console horsepower. Argh.

I guess this makes me even more interested in seeing what Nintendo has cooking up with the NX. Hopefully they can manage to pull off an ecosystem that's dev friendly so it isn't just another Nintendo-only machine.

I wouldn't worry about that, Cary. I don't think games will go all VR. I think a lot of people are lukewarm on VR (myself included), so I suspect it will be niche, especially at the current price points. Not sure that it'll ever progress beyond that, but that's just my opinion.

I used to really enjoy shooters, but these days they don't do much for me. Overwatch seems very well done, but I have plenty of other stuff I'd rather throw my time into. Now Doom on the other hand might get a play, but only on PC and only if I can get it super cheap.

Funny enough, most of this stuff just registers in the frustration department for me. What really pisses me off about Nintendo is trying to develop games for them. If you want to experience real anger, give that process a go. I promise these frustrations will seem trivial by comparison.

Awesome. Dark Souls 1 is a masterpiece, so I'm glad to hear it's like that.

While DS3 is definitely faster, I've found that it feels really good as I've gone through it. I've almost wrapped up NG+ and it's just such a satisfying game to play. It feels new, while still being familiar. At the time I really enjoyed Dark Souls 2, but it just didn't match up to my experience with 1. I think 3 evokes the feelings I had with 1 and I've really been enjoying myself. I literally can not stop playing it and now getting into PVP, I might be stuck on it for a long while.

I need to give this a go. Still totally hooked on Dark Souls 3 though and Bloodborne is still lingering incomplete in my backlog, as is the DLC for DS2. Oh yeah, and Lords of the Fallen. Argh!

Eventually I'll grab this one on Vita and go to town.

I agree, there's definitely more of an offensive bent to this one, but I do think it's still very defensive, especially when compared to Bloodborne. I think what I liked most was the mix that was provided. In DS1, you largely needed to play completely defensively, bosses included to be successful (with the exception of the DLC section, which was much more offensive). DeS and DS2 were basically the same drill. Bloodborne is basically the opposite.

DS3 feels like a nice mix where you need to really analyze the situation and get an understanding of the enemy before you decide how you're going to approach. I've found myself playing really defensively against some bosses and doing the opposite with others. I guess my one gripe has been the fact that many of the bosses, especially the biggest ones have been pretty gimmicky. That said, some have been really awesome and enjoyable. Pontiff Sulyvahn, Dancer, and Old Demon King come to mind.

In my playthrough I've done some multi. Usually after I finish up a boss, I'll drop my soul sign and help others get through. Done a bit of invading and summoned some dark spirits, but I usually do more multi stuff on my second playthrough. I do feel like pure strength builds kind of break the game. I'm insanely strong and I've got a weapon that now S scales with Strength. It's not quite as bad as DS1 where I barely had to try once I got my Demon's Great Axe totally maxed, but it's still kind of ridiculous. All that being said, I haven't died all that much either and have also explored a ton. I know Yarger wrapped up everything in about 35 hours, so I'm guessing you must've spent more time than you realized on multi.

I haven't tried any alternate builds just yet, but I can see how the game wouldn't favor archers or casters. Some of the changes with FP and stuff seem to be a reaction to DS2 where people totally abused those systems to make ridiculous OP builds. Not sure what my next build will be, but I might do a Pyromancer or something, we'll see.

In any event, I think this one is probably my second favorite behind DS1. I need to play more of Bloodborne to really place that one properly, but I've definitely prefered DS3 to it. DeS and DS2 exist in the same space for me. Didn't like the early part of either of those game and felt they both came alive later in the experience. DS2 after you finish The Lost Bastille and DeS when you hit Tower of Latria. At least as of right now, my preference goes something like this:

1) Dark Souls
2) Dark Souls 3
3) Bloodborne
4) Dark Souls 2 and Demon's Souls