Which of these games had your favorite combat, and which had the best feeling combat, and why was it Bloodborne?

Bloodborne definetly, although it’s comparitively “messy” when compared to Dark Souls or Sekiro, it does just feel better.

Dark Souls combat is good and fits the game it’s in perfectly, pretty slow and methodical, as long as you can keep calm and in control of situation you’ll be fine. Bloodborne is kinda like that, but speed is turned up 3x and you’re allowed to make occasional mistakes without being punished (Rally system), but fucking up is punished severely, eg counter-hits go up to 88% damage increase if you get hit in the middle of attacking.

Dark Souls 3 is just bleh

Sekiro is cool, but against mobs it’s just very messy and spammy (but lacks variety in approach found in other games), and vs bosses or elite enemies it ends up feeling like a QTE often. Feels too restrictive most of the time.

I do like the posture system, but I think the game relies on it too much, with deathblows bring instant kills. For what they were working with, they did a good job, but I think basing a whole game around that system was a bad idea if they expected anywhere near as much longevity as prior games.

I hope Elden Ring uses perfectly timed blocks to damage an enemies poise. For one it would make turtle playstyle more involved, and the traditional Dark Souls parry+riposte it just too blatantly overpowered against enemies you can do it on and (obviously) useless on those you can’t. Being able to poise-break Enemies by playing skilful defense would be a good compromise. Imagine if Bloodborne gun parries worked exactly as is, but Viscerals only happened in unique circumstances, eg crippling a bosses head. You’d still get massive counter damage vs an enemy, but the huge I-frames and knockdown that parry’s currently have, not to mention obscene damage on SKL builds, make parry spamming way too desirable.

>bleh
seriously reddit

Sekiro.
Bloodborne is too easy to cheese and the framerate/framepacing damages the experience. I love one on one fights in Sekiro, so much more direct/confrontational than Soulsborne.

Dark Souls 2 > Straight Swords 3

You mean Rapiers 2 > Straight Swords 3?

This
I enjoyed DaS3 but its just too much like BB in its combat. Youre dodging almost as much as BB but its not a quick step, so if you see someone play, all you see is a knight rolling around like a fucking idiot.

>I love one on one fights in Sekiro, so much more direct/confrontational than Soulsborne.
elaborate

Precisely. For most of NG1 unless you overleveled like a retard, rolling was particularly fast and reserved for light builds only. All knight builds were mid-roll or heavy and felt like it, but gave you a fair trade off for poise... that just went MIA in later games for *whatever* reason.

I think that parrying in BB should've only worked on mobs. Riposting a player or boss requires a number of successful "parries" to deplete their stamina or posture and when you land a shot that depletes on of those they're put into a parryable state.
This means it's not so easy to gunspam because hitting your shot doesn't stop the kirkhammer drop swinging, it just depletes their posture and deals a bit of damage. After you've hit the 3rd or 4th parry then they're in a riposté state.

Thoughts?

Attached: 1560040499726.jpg (1080x1214, 131K)

>Rapiers 2
Fucking swords, Power Stanced Maces used to be king goddamnit

DS1 is Legos
DS2 is Playmobile
DS3 is Bionicles
and Sekiro is a 30$ sandwich from subway

He even does it to your Shadowrush

Not him, but in Bloodborne you can only land a 3hits on the enemy before they die, especially in PvP.
In A.I Hunter fights it's just about baiting their retarded selves to walk into a charged R2 (which they do all the time because they cannot understand that you might have more range than anticipated).
In Sekiro every 1v1 feels like more than that.
>Bloodborne is Mechano

And if he breaks your posture, he does a fucking deathblow on you.

Demon's Souls.

>rapiers
Nigger I don't even know what you're talking about. There were plenty of dumb meme weapons like the rock spear and mundane daggers, but nothing, especially not any rapier type weapons, as flat out broken as the fact that straight swords are categorically better than every other weapon in 3.
I played a couple hundred hours of both games, despite soul memory and everything else it did wrong Dark Souls 2 had better lasting combat than 3. Even with frame 1 parry monastery scimitar.

3 straight up lies to you, it lies about poise, it lies about weapon range, it lies about stamina, it lies about being as fast as bloodborne, it lies about weapon arts, it's a game that doesn't know what it wants to be. Everything it has going for it is either repurposed Bloodborne assets or Dark Souls 1 nostalgia.
2 has 3 pixel tree sprites and an elevator into a volcano in the sky but it somehow manages to have more soul than the cashgrab to follow, and Dark Souls 2 was a terrible game.

Sekiro because the underlying game engine and mechanics are 100x more fluid than any previous souls game. It also plays at 60fps on PC. There's no delayed, floaty feeling sprint and strafing mechanics like Bloodborne, (something compounded considerably so by the games atrocious performance), and there's a dedicated and smooth jump button. Of course, you could argue that simply refers to the gameplay, and not the overall "feeling" of the combat. In my opinion, the only thing Bloodborne has above the other souls games is the trick mechanic for weapons, and the incredibly well done blood and gore, which you could argue adds to a "visceral" feeling.

But at a fundamental level, nothing in the previous games comes anywhere close to the almost dance-like feeling you get on a rush in Sekiro, and it's not just the player input within respect to the combat either, it's the intelligent reactions and aggressive nature of the enemies also.

>its a game that dosnt know what it wants to be

I remember reading this before i played it and dismissed it thinking user was being retarded, but once i played it this describes it perfectly. Honestly i feel like both DaS sequels were unnecessary and its pretty clear FROM dosnt do well with obligated sequels.

You've clearly never used any rapiers in DS2. They outclass everything large margin.

>I played a couple hundred hours of both games, despite soul memory and everything else it did wrong Dark Souls 2 had better lasting combat than 3. Even with frame 1 parry monastery scimitar.
I've got 500 hours in DS2 and 1100 in DS3, and I can assure you DS3 is more balanced.

> But at a fundamental level, nothing in the previous games comes anywhere close to the almost dance-like feeling you get on a rush in Sekiro, and it's not just the player input within respect to the combat either, it's the intelligent reactions and aggressive nature of the enemies also.

I agree with this, but Sekiro is also by far the least replayable of all the games. Figuring out those bosses on your first run was a better experience than most other fights in previous games, but on repeat runs it really feels like just going through the motions. This happens in other games as well, if you choose to do same build over and over, but why would you do that? The different movesets, speed, reach, stamina costs of of weapons in other games (not to mention magic builds) create much greater sense of replayability.

Bloodborne's atmosphere, tone, lore (in as far as trying to make some sense of the eldritch stuff can be called that) music etc is also the best. But obviously gameplay is the selling point of these games so.

Sekiro.
Souls combat is nothing special. BB is a refinement on that base i guess but still nothing remarkable.

That's all true. I don't think replayability changes my thoughts on the core nature of Sekiro's combat being mechanically superior though.

With Bloodborne I sometimes feel something similar, even with different weapons. It always happens to me around about the forbidden woods on my second playthrough, something about the slog on the content up until the end game/dlc.

Ultimately for me, different weapons have only really mattered for enjoying combat more when considering PVP. The Dark Souls games give you such an absolute and unparalleled freedom to fuck around and devise all sorts of batshit crazy scheme builds to troll and make peoples lives a misery. That's something I missed from Bloodborne. Sekiro was a singleplayer game, so I never really expected it to last me more than one, or perhaps two playthroughs honestly.

What's wrong with only playing a game once or twice?
You buy the game, play it, beat it, and then move on to the next game you want to play.
What, does every game have to be some live service or online multiplayer or ADD speedrunning experience that you play over and over again on repeat for years of your life? Can't a game just be pretty good and then it ends and you move on?

When did "I beat the game and it was good" become not good enough? Why is every game suddenly judged by the standard that you have to be able to autistically keep playing it forever until you get bored?

The combat is so similar in soulsborne minus sekiro, that if you've played one you might as well have played them all.

Value for money. A game that manages to stay fresh after a 100 hours or something is a better return on investment than buying a game you could complete in less than ten and not want to play again despite paying the same price. I appreciate it's become too much of a sticking point particularly with Soulsborne.

I think at a point that just gets ridiculous. There's nothing objective about your value for money idea because you make your own value and it depends entirely on the person. Some people would have 0 fun forcing themselves to replay a dark souls game but a ton of fun replaying sekiro. Replayability is entirely a personal opinion, as long as the game gives you a full experience for the money you paid for it there's not much of a value discrepancy and it's not really a fair point to demand a game conform to your personal preference for degree of "replayability".
Most people finished sekiro in somewhere between 30 and 50 hours. For a $60 game, getting about as many hours out of it as you paid dollars into it is comforming to a pretty high standard for amount of game you got for your money.
Figuring out the bosses on your first run was a better experience than most other fights in previous games, and for this one that's all that really matters. Whether it holds up or not on the 100th run is kinda irrelevant for a game designed to only be played a couple times at most.

for me it is nioh

>A game that manages to stay fresh after a 100 hours
none of the dark souls games stay fresh. they get stale after 1 playthrough just the same as any other game and your buildbrony autism will not change this fact.

Best combat: Sekiro
Best bosses: Dark Souls 3
Best level design: Dark souls 1
Best overall game: Bloodborne
Can go fuck itself: Dark souls 2

what the fuck is up with you idiots being so fixated on one site

what is it with you and needing to reply to me
dont reply again

Because sekiro is seen as a souls game by a lot of people who refuse to treat it as their own entity. I got 3 good playthroughs out of Sekiro before moving on. I have usually never played any souls game more than 2-3 play throughs. Only a small minority of people play it more than that anyways.

>I agree with this, but Sekiro is also by far the least replayable of all the games.

Of course, why wouldn’t it be? It wasn’t made to be. The Sekiro “experiment” was seeing how they could design a ‘Souls-based’ game with mostly set equipment and without having to worry about balancing the bosses around different builds, or designing bosses around people summoning and breaking their AI.

It worked. Sekiro has the least replayability, the least variety, but the best combat. It is objectively the most complicated and involved, and deflecting is more fun than any parry system for PvE.

fuck you

DaS1 > DeS > DaS2 > DaS3 > Nioh > Bloodborne > Sekiro

Even pure action games like DMC, ninja gaiden, and metal gear rising have multiple weapons and outfit changes/skins that warrants more playthroughs. Sekiro doesn't even have those. To make it worse, the spirit emblem system completely contradicts the "action" nature of this game because it puts a hold on how much you can use your prosthetics and combat arts. Instead of letting it be on a cooldown meter that builds up faster the more you deflect,mikiri or do death blows, it's a on a shitty spirit emblem system. I dont get how From always has atleast ONE poorly thought out mechanic in all their games, despite how good they are