To be honest, I didn't even know Bloodbourne was a part of a series. If I had, I probably would have avoided it.
I'm playing Bloodborne as well. Now I'm in the swing of things I love it (and have little previous experience with the Souls games-- just a few minutes with Dark Souls 1, which didn't hook me), but I do think that even given the no-handholding ethos the lack of context and guidance is a little much. I too might well have gotten frustrated if I hadn't used walkthroughs to figure out that I needed Insight to level and then made a beeline for the Cleric Beast arena to get my first one. (By the way, Servo, if you ever get surprised by a boss again, you can just quit out via the System menu. When you reload, you'll be back outside the boss arena with your blood echoes intact. I wish I'd known that before I let the Cleric Beast kill me and lost the 3500 echoes I'd built up getting to him.) I also agree the lock-on mechanism is annoying; when I want it to break so I can spin the camera it won't, but when I don't want it to it does. And the load times after you die are brutal, which is a very bad thing in a trial-by-death game. But I can definitely see why these games are so popular: the satisfaction when I finally got past the bonfire in Central Yharnam was a wonderful thing. I'm not sure I'm liking it enough that I want to try the Souls games, as it sounds like those have subtly different dynamics I'd like less, but I'll definitely stick with this one.
Bloodbourne is the one game that makes me wish that I had a PS4. I love everything that the Souls series stands for and does for gaming. I'm just waiting for a price drop and time for the PS4 to get a few more high quality games before I jump in, but eventually I will play this game. Also, I want the Canadian dollar to rebound a bit. $85 for games is crazy.
Started playing Wild Arms. I've been feeling the urge to play an RPG, and with FF Tactics not turning out well I've moved on to this, and I'm enjoying it so far. I like the setting, and its combat (while not that unique) is fun.
So what I'm gathering about "Bloodbourne" is that I need to power through and wait for it to get good. I can do that.
I haven't played Bloodbourne yet, but if it's anything like the other Souls games it's not that the games get better it's that you get used to the style of the game. Many games are designed around providing the player a fun experience through the world that the developers created. They treat the player nicely and have very low penalties for failure. These games are like going to a resort for a vacation and getting a tour guide to show you the sights while retiring to your hotel at night. Bloodbourne isn't a tour guide. Bloodbourne is more like getting parachuted into the middle of a vast wilderness with a knife, a leaky tent, and a half empty flask of water. You're on your own and if you screw up you'll die a horrible death. The appeal of these games is the incredible satisfaction you feel for completing a difficult task and reaching a new area or discovering more of the lore/story. You don't get to a new area because that's where the story leads. You get to a new area because you sweated blood taking out that boss. Does what I just describe sound potentially appealing? If yes, then power on. You'll probably love Bloodbourne once you get used to it. If no, then stop playing. Not every type of game is for everyone and that's fine.
I think I'll need to play some more before deciding if that's for me. When I started playing it, I wasn't really committed to gaming for much more than an hour. I didn't know enough about the game to realize that that really wasn't enough time to accomplish anything.
Yes, I'll give it that. It is nice to not have tips or icons popping up all the time. An optional tutorial might have been a good addition though. Those floor mesengers just don't cut it with the random tips, especially if you're new to the game. This. 1000 times this. By far the most annoying thing about dying is the bloody time it takes to reload. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Bloodborne is technically part of a series, just a new game from the same developers that shares elements with previous games from that developer. There are, from what I've read, differences between this and the Souls games.
Tower of Guns (PS4). A decent FPS, no blood or vulgarity....a good, fun game even for the kiddies. You don't kill people, just machines. I don't see a heavy amount of replay value for it, unless they plan on making more levels as DLC....as well as new weapons. What I couldn't believe was that there was one level (which I've encountered only once, as it randomly throws you in different parts of the tower each time) that actually bogged the PS4 down to a barely playable 10 frames per second. That was frustrating. I couldn't even finish that level....had to back out and start again. Thankfully, as I said, it randomly throws you in different parts of the tower. You could play an entire round and never see the same level for probably three games. I still have yet to beat the game. Got it for free on PS PLUS, so, not bad.
That's right. And while the three Souls titles have gameplay that's more similar to each other than any of them are to Bloodborne, Demon's Souls isn't part of the same world or storyline as the two Dark Souls games. Maybe I'm just overleveled (currently 22 while exploring the Cathedral Ward-- I just stumbled onto Old Yharnam), but I'm not finding the game quite as death-drenched and forbidding as I expected. It's still fantastic though. Creeping around darkened environments waiting for an enemy to shamble out of the shadows, mash me to a pulp, and steal my hard-earned blood echoes... it makes my heart pound like my actual life was at stake.
The relative difficulty of the Souls games has been widely overstated to the point of becoming a meme, and compared to those games, Bloodborne is even friendlier. They're not hard, they're generally simply unforgiving to sloppy play.
Difficulty is relative. I find the 3D combat and parrying system of the Souls games very hard to master, but on the other hand I can breeze through Contra on the NES almost effortlessly.
I have just downloaded the GTA V game for the PC. I never played any game from GTA series before. The Trailer look great though and i decided to buy it. I was playing Cities: Skylines and it is a nice game.
Interesting. There's a lot of overlap between the two, if you think about it - practice, repetition, memorization of enemy positions and routes, all of these help immensely in both games. They're both unforgiving if you're getting sloppy or trying to rush through a segment. They're both generally very fair, failure is basically in every instance attributable to the player and the reasons for a failure state very much apparent. Maybe what's troubling you is (mainly) the 3D movement and/or camera.
The only type of online gaming I do these days is through Fantasy Grounds. Video games just don't do much for me, especially MMOs where they (the people designing and coding the games) just don't seem to understand the appeal. Hint: It has nothing to do with the gameplay.
I don't dispute the truth of that, but it's a bit of a bazaar attitude when you think about it. It's like saying "people don't read books for the words, they just like turning pages." For me personally there are very few games where I'll willingly suffer poor gameplay mechanics in favour of the narrative or anything else.