What are some other side projects vastly superior to the main franchise? There's the obvious one in the OP...

every weapon is viable.

name 3 enemy/boss reskin

The main argument of the Dark Souls boomer is basically:
>More equipment.
>More builds and build tuning.
>More playstyles.
>Better world design.
The 'more builds and build-tuining' shit isn't even true, and in exchange for you what you get, Bloodborne has better enemies, bosses, combat, music, atmosphere, weapons, balance, level design, a narrative that's complete, and tons of minor improvements. This is to saying nothing of Dark Souls 1's flaws. While BB's flaws are dumb shit like "potion farming" and teleporting multiple times, Dark Souls 1's flaws are like terrible enemies, bosses, and the worst weapons in the series (literally downgraded from Demon's Souls).

Probably means the chalice dungeons that's the only place it happens

Persona was a side project from the shin megami series.
Final fantasy tactics can be considered better than many of the main line titles.

probably means that you fight several different versions of the townsfolk enemy throughout the first 2/3 of game

Bloodborne is a barebones shittier Dark Souls 3. The only memorable thing is the setting.

Here's Dark Souls flaws:
>Worst-in-series weapons.
>R1 spam is optimal play.
>Terrible enemies that pose no threat to the player.
>Terrible bosses that die in seconds and have no moves.
>Poise is broken and easily the worst combat mechanic in the series.
>Most broken backstab mechanics in the series.
>Plenty of terrible levels.
>Slow.
>Shields and ranged shit on the game.
>Shitty music with midi and soft instruments.
>Kick does nothing inexplicably (shit design).
>All sorts of retard design like weapons in a shared class having different swing speeds and hit-stun tied to upgrade level

>Demons Souls is great
>Dark Souls is great
>Dark Souls 2 sucks
>Dark Souls 3 sucks
>Bloodborne is great
What could the pattern be here I wonder?

you mean dark souls 3 is barebones bloodborne ripoff.

Dark Souls 3 is worst in every way except bosses. There's a reason nobody talks about the game anymore and people still talk about BB: it's because BB is literally a superior Dark Souls 3.

Persona isn't vastly superior to any mainline SMT except maybe the early ones though

>Less viable weapons

Yes, unique weapons with varied
movesets. So shit. Magic also exists in this game, it has Augur of Ebrietas, A call beyond, milkweed parasite, arcane firearms etc. Just because the magic is actually varied unlike the repetitive lasers in DS1 doesn’t mean it is nonexistant. And how can you complain about reskins when DS1 uses Asylum Demon 3 times and areas like Demon Ruins, Izalith, Giants Tomb, Depths and Parish just reuse the same mobs from before, Even Anor Londo just has reskinned Black Knights, Re-used gargoyles and 2 original mobs. The Great Hollow also reuses Basiliks and Mushrooms. The re-skins and rehashes never end in this shitty game.

>plenty of terrible levels
3

DaS=BB>DeS=Sekiro>DaS3>DaS2

?
Ruins, Izalith, Valley of Drakes, Crystal Caves, Great Hollow, Ash Lake (inb4 muh atmosphere; the level sucks), Catacombs.

Side project from what?

>How can Dark Souls be better when Bloodborne vastly improves on nearly every aspect of it?
It doesn't. At best it's a sidegrade that focuses on completely different things.
Build and playstyle variety in BB is non-existent, especially in regards to hybrids and utility abilities. It takes too long to reach any interesting weapon, the two hour long prologue literally gives you 3 main hand optiosn you will get sick of in a next few runs already. God fucking save your soul if you want a bloodtinge build since you won't get the first bloodtinge weapon until at the very fucking least Amelia. God save your soul if you want an arcane build with even somewhat acceptable gems without wasting 50 hours on chalice dungeon autism.
>Bloodborne is far more open than Dark Souls
This is a very unfunny joke. BB is the most constrained game they ever did. Even reaching Amelia on a casual run is a matter of multiple hours, and during those you have literally no gameplay options and variety whatsoever. After Amelia you get a few dead ends and a railroad to the very end of the game, and some of those dead ends (Cainhurst) are bloodstone chunk territory which means they are not advised to tackle until later.

Chalice dungeons are a horrible fucking slog. The only good thing about them is a literal endgame farming, and to get there you need to trudge through the same fucking unrewarding, fixed dungeons on each of your character, growing to hate everything about them in the process.

this
one word nostalgia... go play both games back to back

Lost Izalith
Demon Ruins
Tomb of the Giants
Here are your bad ds1 levels
Everything else ranges from meh to amazing

Hunters tools are better because they don't involve shitty catalysts. Being able to cast while 2-handing is great, especially with augur. It literally adds depth to the immediate gameplay

maybe if it was 2011

a thing that annoys me about dark souls detractors is that they classify each named area as a “level” when some clearly aren’t meant to be anything more than set pieces or transitions

I disagree. If you think shit like Catacombs or Crystal Caves or Great Hollow aren't completely dogshit "levels," I guess we agree to disagree

>Being able to cast while 2-handing is great
It's a good thing weapon catalyst has been a thing for 2 dark souls games already.
As someone who did the 99 ARC build in BB, arcane tools are nowhere near your typical souls caster as far as gameplay variety and utility goes. It's the most basic, barebones things given a fancy animation. Augur is the only mechanically interesting tool in the game, and even then it took them a year of buffing to give it an interesting niche.

Ok bro

lol was augur not originally meant for stunning/cheesing the riposte state

Catacombs are literally the best vertical area in whole series. It's also one of a few levels that account for invaders thanks to the addition of bridge switches. It's an absolutely brilliant level and you should take your enormous shit taste away from here.
Crystal Caves is a small area with interesting gimmick an amazing atmosphere. I certainly prefer it over the unrewarding slog of Nightmare Frontier.

Originally augur dealt shit damage and couldn't riposte/backstab. Its only use was to knock enemies away from you. They only patched it to the current state prior to DLC release.

Is this what passes as a counterpoint? Byrgenwerth and Isofeka's are fairly scripted and tiny levels, and it's great. No, these areas don't get a pass. Why would they? BB has a shitty one too, it's called Lecture Hall

you can't be more barebones than bloodborne

>less characters
>less stats
>less weapons
>less armor sets
>less consumables
>less enemy types
>less bosses
>less to explore
>less moves

See the trend? Oh but I guess it's a different type of game that favors """aggressive""" approach of aggressively waiting for the enemy to finish combo so you can dab on it with two hit combo and repeat 10 times until dead or spam bullets till it staggers for visceral

Catacombs is a muddy dull piece of shit with 3 enemies. It's the shitty little tunnel section from Stonefang 2 turned into a "level.'
Crystal Caves is just awful level design overall.

Research Hall is a muddy dull piece of shit with 3 enemies. It's the shitty library section from Duke's Archives turned into a "level.'
Nightmare of Mensis is just awful level design overall.

I agree, research hall sucks. Nightmare of Mensis however never approaches the absolute dogshit design levels of Crystal Caves, and that's the thing:
The highs of Bloodborne and DaS1 are the same, but the quality dips of DaS1 are much lower.

Bloodborne's flaws are as follows:
>Lack of tonal/environmental variety. In Dark Souls and Demon's Souls a lot of the levels are distinct enough that it feels like a varied journey with peaks and troughs. DaS does this most obviously with its ascent to Anor Londo. Bloodborne for the most part is fairly monotonous in its themeing.
>Atmospherically not as rich as those games for the same reason.
>Lack of enemy variety (applies mostly to base game, as will most of these points)
>Makes concessions to both the level structure of Demon's and the holistic world of Dark Souls. Ends up not having the true seamlessness and intricacy of Dark's world design or Demon's old-school structure, instead hits a bit of an unhappy middle-ground
>Combat became more reaction-based. This means it slightly misses the weight of its predecessors, as well as the defensive options, that made them so unique as action games.
>Screen-filling hyper-agressive bosses are not totally suited to the game's camera or combat and can lead to some unfair and random deaths
>The game stumbles in the Forest of Resident Evil 4 rip-offs and Copy-pasted Snake Balls and never fully recovers. Everything noticeably begins to feel like stitched-together assets.

For these reasons, Bloodborne (while still a good game) is not as good as either Demon's or Dark Souls.

I disagree

nightmare of mensis is very short and a bit too easy but I can’t think of another from title that does its carnival like presentation of challenges and sights so well

The Crystal Caves is barely a level. You're there for about 2 minutes.
Meanwhile in Bloodborne you're trapped in that shitty ghost-spam level Castle Cainhurst for about two hours

>Demons Souls is great
>Dark Souls is great
>Dark Souls 2 sucks
>Bloodborne is great
>Dark Souls 3 sucks
>Sekiro is great
>Elden Ring ???
ftfy

Lack of "tonal variety" adds cohesion. It makes you feel like you're in a city and the surrounding countryside and some otherworldly locales.
The atmosphere is richer, simply because of clutter, palatte, colors, etc.
Bloodborne has THE MOST enemies in the series.
Combat in all the games is reactionary to some extent.

I mean, all these points are really moot or extremely subjective. Here's Dark Souls flaws:
Much more concise and objective.

Well, feel free to take Catacombs, Ruins, Izalith, Valley of Drakes, Seathe, etc, and insert those.

>want any build in any souls game
>the weapon for this build is always in close proximity to the early game
>want a bloodtinge build in BB
>my only weapon options come from killing Logarius (an equivalent of One Reborn difficulty and upgrade level wise) or progressing through the DLC past 3 fucking bosses and 2 major areas

Attached: 1558696948563.jpg (500x510, 33K)

No those weren't objective at all. Just saying "terrible levels" and "shit bosses" is obviously very subjective.

Dark Souls might be my GOTD tbhdesu

>R1 spam is optimal play
That's true of Bloodborne, not Dark Souls. Stamina management had become a lot more forgiving in BB

>one word nostalgia... go play both games back to back
I literally just did Dark Souls is more rough around the edges but it also has higher highs.

>the weapon for this build is always in close proximity to the early game
Bullshit, Dark Souls 3 was fucking awful for how much shit was gated until you beat the 4 lords of cinder.

> Fair, altough there is a nice development from gothic bloody horrot type environments to bizarre otherwordly ones
> Wouldn't agree at all, the atmosphere in Bloodborne is incredible, and the design and details of the levels suppport the atmosphere so well
> true, although I'd say Souls uses a lot of variations on a theme. There's not much functional difference between a knight, skeleton or hollow soldier
> I feel like it worked fine, and there were some nice touches that hinted at the weird way the world fit together
> Less defensive, but way more satisfying and visceral. Trick weapons are great.
> Yep, but Souls had its shhare of mechanically shitty and awkward bosses. Generally there aren't too many one hit kills at least
> I didn't think there was much of a drop off, especially compared to other souls games. DS1 especially goes really hard to shit.

Wrong for two reasons.
1. Trick attacks are the highest DPS (in Dark Souls 1, R1 spam is highest DPS).
2. There are no stunlocks (Dark Souls has tons of stunlocks).
3. You have no poise and have to be aware at all times (Dark Souls 1 has poise).

Pokémon Mystery Dungeon, easily.

No way fag

Seems like any Fromsoft sequel is inferior to Just a totally new project.

The levels are designed poorly and don't take advantage of the series' strengths of a nice mix of corridors, antechambers, labyrinthine design with shortcuts.
Shit bosses is pretty easy to understand: they lack moves, they're squishy, they lack phases, you can dive at their nuts and abuse them easily.

>Bullshit, Dark Souls 3 was fucking awful for how much shit was gated
DS3 is literally the best game in whole series as far as giving you weapon options go
Boss weapons are accessible within 3 bosses, DLC with unique weapons is accessed within 3 bosses, even some of the endgame equipment is accessible within 2 bosses if you're good enough, the only gated shit is the one inside the Archives which is a small handful of general weapon pool (Gotthards, 2kat and witch's locks).

A new player to Dark Souls is going to have a difficult time getting through the first level, the Undead Burg, by standing in place and spamming R1. That level specifically teaches you not to do that.

Meanwhile, the very first boss of BB (while optional), the Cleric Beast, teaches the played to be as aggressive as possible to get through a very large health pool.

I understand you mean that in the meta of the game, it's possible for the player to use poise to stagger an enemy and spam R1, but it's not really a game totally designed with the meta first-and-foremost

1. Dark Souls does all of that very consistently.
2. All of that is subjective and applicable to bosses in Bloodborne.

Here's another unpopular opinion. Bloodborne's combat is worse than Dark Souls.
People meme about Souls combat being dodge and R1 spam fest but in BB's case that wouldn't be an exaggeration cause it's legit what you do from the start of the game all the way to the end. I got so bored of the game by the time i got to Yahar'gul.
In Dark Souls and to less extent Demon's Souls you have more both defensive and offensive options so there's a lot of room to experiment which kept the shallow combat interesting.

Bloodborne technically is a better game than the DS series because it is harder to master but when it comes to exploring, DS is far better because there is bigger variety to the levels (yet they perfectly connect) and have an open world design that allows you to go wherever you wanr. In bloodborne and DS3, the exploring is more linear. The maps here are like maze and have a simple A to B(or hidden C) exits. I liked how vague and disconnected the DS1 dlc was. The worst dlc placement was in ds2. So in the end DS1 feels more organic, and BB with DS3 feel more methodic, so its a matter or personal taste

A new player in DaS will do just fine spamming R1 until he hits a Black Knight—a one time spawn.
A new player in BB will be able to spam R1 until he hits a troll, a giant, or a werewolf. Those come on pretty fast as regular mobs.

The big difference is that Dark Souls 1 actively punishes you for not spamming R1, while Bloodborne rewards you for using other attacks.
Bloodborne enemies have a much higher chance of retaliating too, and werewolves will frequently dp you right through your attack right off the bat. As the game goes on, this happens more and more, while in Dark Souls it happens less and less if you pick the right weapons... and even less if you pick the right armor that unlocks the ability to "ignore game mechanics" and smash R1

I think a testament to how good Dark Souls' weighty, slower-paced combat is is how it saves Dark Souls 2. Dark Souls 2 ends up a fun and engaging game despite its massive amount of flaws purely because its combat is that same as Dark Souls', albeit with shocking hitboxes and tracking
Bloodborne's reliance on dodging fast hyper-aggressive enemies with endless attack chains sort of misses that

1. It's not consistent at all. Dark Souls 1 is mocked for its second half.
2. Bloodborne does it much better. Enemies routinely have 10+ moves and 3 phases that each modify the moves. Dark Souls bosses have no phases, no move modification, and less than half the moves on average. There are even little things like BB bosses will modify their combo strings depending on where the player is—Dark Souls 1 bosses don't have this level of complexity.

Spaming R1 is legit more viable in Dark Souls than in any other game. See:

>A new player in DaS will do just fine spamming R1
He's not. Think about the mobs with shields in the Undead Burg. They're going to learn that poise is a factor, but with most starter weapons it's difficult to overwhelm enemies. Patient luring is the best option.
A new player in BB is going to learn that "rallying" is a very important way of beating enemies, including werewolves and giants, very early in the game. R1 spamming in BB is so important, the game even gives it a name.

Again, in the meta of Dark Souls, the game can allow you to R1 spam. But this isn't the reality for most players, and it's certainly not as prevalent as it is in Bloodborne.

>1. It's not consistent at all. Dark Souls 1 is mocked for its second half.
Massively over-exaggerated considering there are only two bad levels, Demon Ruins and Izalith.
Why do "phases" or 100 moves somehow make a boss better? You can make the point of complexity, but bosses being able to read your inputs doesn't necessarily equate to complexity, or at least not the fair or game-enriching kind. It goes back to that Bloodborne flaw of screen-filling hyper-agressive bosses being able to know more about you than you do them, since your camera isn't always 100% going to have a good read on them, while they have a perfect read on you

?
He's going to blow their guard in two hits if he's 2 handing his weapon and destroy them and it's going to reinforce not only that spamming is king, but if you meet something that resists spamming, you just spam harder.

No, he's going to learn that if he runs up in front of an enemy and does that, his three other buddies are going to surround and rape him. Luring and patience is the best option

It's not an exaggeration.

More complex bosses are better. They add layers to the fight and make it more dynamic. Bosses aren't "reading your inputs," they're procedurally reacting to where you are. More interaction is better. Furthermore, the bosses usually have multiple avenues of victory:
They often react to items like blood cocktails, you can parry, backstab, weak point stagger, it burst stagger, and sometimes you just have to slash them to death. It allows for more player initiative.
In Dark Souls 1, you're always forced to slash them to death and there is nothing resembling tactics.

This is the case in all the games, that goes without saying. Luring and patience is the best option in Bloodborne too, but when you do get cornered, you can actually fight.

Everything you listed equates to maybe two more (tenuous) combat options than Dark Souls, hardly a revolution in player initiative. In any case, it actually has less tactics than Dark Souls, owing to almost non-existent defensive options

It has several times more offensive options in both what the player can do, what mechanics work on enemies, movesets quality, etc. There's more much overall engagement.

Dark Souls is literally stand in a spot and spam R1 to win. There is no thinking.

This.

Spamming r1 dark souls with shit weapon.
You sure never played the game

It wasn't. We've already been over this in this thread, read back a few posts. Bloodborne encourages R1 spam, Dark Souls doesn't.

Nope

What were they thinking?

Attached: Literally mashing the R1 button.webm (640x360, 1.79M)

Bloodborne isn't very likely to get a sequel. Despite being a meme game on Yea Forums, it sold "only" around two million.

Bloodborne would be a masterpiece, if the game wasn't such railroaded garbage. Central Yharnam connects to Forbidden Woods, but you're arbitrarily locked from going to that area until halfway through the game.
Dark Souls wins out simply by virtue of infinitely better world design that facilitates multiple playthroughs.

Attached: robotnikPepe.png (680x680, 126K)

Dark Souls does. You stunlock an enemies—something you can't do in BB. You have poise—something you don't have in Bloodborne. The best way to race enemy poise is to spam R1 to break it—in Bloodborne you will be killed this way since enemies will DP through your attack. R1 spam is top DPS—it isn't in Bloodborne.
Literally all avenues in Dark Souls 1 lead to smashing R1 as an optimal strategy.
In Bloodborne, not only is it not optimal, even individual enemies will force constant trades if you try this, and some enemies, like Labyrinth Men, will actively punish it.

Bloodborne isn't likely to get a sequel, thankfully, but sales have nothing to do with it. Sony have already said they are more than pleased with its sales and that it surpassed their expectations.

>Bloodborne is railroaded garbage! You have to beat this guy to get past this door arbitrarily!
>Why can't it be like Souls where you beat these two guys to move past THIS door to the other half of the game arbitrarily?

>Dark Souls 1
>multiple playthroughs for world exploring
>Do I want to ring bell 1 first, or bell 2 first?
>Do I want to use the master key to open a different door than normal to ring bell first, or not?

They're pretty much the same bro.

>can't stun lock enemies in BB

Did we play the same game, BB has loads of things that can be locked

Bloodborne is such a superior game:
Better music, better enemies, better bosses, richer atmosphere, better narrative, it's faster and funner, the combat is better, the trick weapons are a joy to use. It's practically perfect aside from small time shit like teleporting and gems being boring

>but it also has higher highs.
it absolutely fucking doesn't.

Attached: 57f544a2d6e1d3ab8c10ddb91baa9e42.jpg (1496x808, 356K)

Wrong on all accounts.

> interesting gimmick
Don't you fucking start. Invisible platforms are literally Mario romhack tier of level design. It's very fucking obvious that it was meant to be a real level, but they ran out of time making it and just ended up making the weird 2 minute walk corridor it ended up being.

>literally

see You certainly can stunlock enemies in Bloodborne, in fact the game encourages you to do so through the "rallying" mechanic, where you gain health by spamming R1 against enemies. It is very much the most optimal way to play Bloodborne. In Dark Souls, you can do the same thing through poise, but this is with the correct stat investments and knowing secrets in the game e.g. the Wolf Ring. Dark Souls is purposefully a much slower game and has a much more of an emphasis on stamina management, so R1 spam is given less of an incentive than Bloodborne.

>Yea Forums doesn't know what a stunlock is.
Why am I not surprised?
BB has no stunlocks in it because there isn't enough hit-stun to force a lock.
Feel free to try and stunlock an NPC like Crow of Cainhurst and they will randomly shoot you in the face. Tons of enemies will go through your """stun-locks""" and kill you. Repeatedly hitting an enemy isn't a stunlock if they can retaliate.
In Dark Souls, stun-locks are inescapable, enemies cannot retaliate.

Right on all accounts. That's why it's rated higher an won more gotys.

Cope.

Attached: GOAT Souls.png (1676x676, 372K)

You're aware you can determine where the path is, right? With items sure but also without them by studying the environment. And that once you figure it out the boss run is a straight line. It's definitely intentional and definitely a classic high fantasy dungeon idea, like the ENTIRE SERIES. It's also in line with the other end game areas that challenge you in ways that aren't "yo fight harder." Tomb of Giants with darkness, Izalith with lava and being awful, Londo with g-g-g-ghosts.

Lost Izalith is an area where they gave the fuck up.

Attached: Bloody Crow of Cainhurst.webm (1280x720, 2.37M)

Bloodborne's music is so cheesy compared to an absolute masterclass like Demon's Souls' OST

This.
youtube.com/watch?v=x3WBu8Lxa9Q

>Stunlock.
>Enemy isn't stunlocked.
?
A webm of an enemy randomly option selecting the worst option possible by backstepping and trying to use interruptibke attacks isn't a stunlock. Every time something like this happens, there is also the gajillion times where she will do a dragon punch spinarooni. You actually stunlock the enemies and bosses in Dark Souls and it's 100% inescapable.

>ah, this doesn't fit my arbitrary definition, so it is wrong!

The only thing easier than the stunlocks and parrylocks available in Bloodborne are goofy shit like building pure ninjutsu in Nioh.

There are a million shitty webms for Dark Souls, like 1 shitting every boss in the game. Let's not pretend this is typical.

Did we play the same game? All PVP and 90% of enemies in Bloodborne can be locked through R1 spam

Stunlocks actually lock. What is arbitrary about this?
Dark Souls is a much easier game because the stunlocks are tighter and your character can't be interrupted thanks to Poise.

Dark Messiah

Except it's very typical to beat Bloodborne enemies by spamming R1, while it's a lot rarer for players to autistically go through NG+++++ with the correct stat allocations to poise certain bosses to death in Dark Souls.

Unreal Tournament

Somebody needs to check Metacritic
We did. You just don't know what stunlocks are. They "lock" as it turns out.

Based.
Better than anything From ever did.

Attached: Dark Messiah Kicking.webm (960x540, 2.89M)

you mean heroes of might and magic III

Tons of enemies will go through your attacks with hyperarmor in BB.
Enemies have poise in Dark Souls, so you just wail on them harder to break it. Not to mention it's easier since you can't be interrupted and there's nothing specific about a build that stacks poise.

>Tons of enemies will go through your attacks with hyperarmor in BB.
With most enemies it's perfectly possible to have a string on uninterrupted R1s against them, and the game literally encourages this.

>literally

fuck off semantic pedant

Seething ESL.

>>R1 spam is optimal play.
It's honestly viable in all of them.

I really hope it wont get sequel, because From proves themselves they cant do that shit properly.

That, plus it doesn't even need a sequel. Fuck zoomer culture where everything needs a sequel nowadays.

From what I've seen this seems to be the case sort of. Really unfortunately I wont be able to play it.

I wouldn't go that far, but it's really good game. It came out at moment were many people were getting tired of FPS of month, more and more gameplay was dumbed down towards general audience and companies were getting crazier with shitty dlc. Then DaS came out and it didn't hold player's hand. Here I will be getting shit for not mentioning DeS as I didnt play it

>From what I've seen
Based retard.

I've played just about every notable game this decade and it's either Dark Souls or Dustforce.

Attached: Dustforce - Observatory.webm (1280x684, 2.11M)

>>R1 spam is optimal play.
Not sure about being optimal, but you can beat DaS1-3 and BB that way.

Trust me, Bloodborne is a good game, but nowhere near as special as Demon's Souls. If you're going to play a console exclusive Souls game, play that.

Are people seriously saying you can't stunlock the vast majority of enemies in either of these games?

Great taste user

Is this a rhetorical question?

>b-b-but the framrate NOOO THIS CAN'T HAPPENIG IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEST SOULS-GAME

>He fell for the 'framerate is bad' meme

Attached: Bloodborne Performance.webm (720x480, 1.51M)

Some people are genuinely trying to claim Dark Souls is singularly guilty of encouraging it, even though Bloodborne has a mechanic were you regain health by doing so

>Demon Souls was pretty good

>Dark Souls was fantastic

>From can suck a fat cock for Dark Souls 2, only good thing about that shit was the pvp and the fact that I could use cheat engine to make a bunch of builds quickly

>Bloodborne is the most interesting of all of them narrative wise. The world and lore is a lot more cohesive and interesting. Environments are amazing. Only issue some of the mechanics are lame, like farming for resources breaks up the gameplay in a bad way imo.

>Dark Souls 3 sucked because of all the reused assets from Bloodborne. Final boss was disappointing as fuck. A lot of stuff about that game was a let down. The Ringed City DLC was really peak Dark Souls though.

>Sekiro tops all of them with vastly superior mechanics. The Japanese setting and lore is kind of overused which makes it boring in a way. Still really well done. The lack of weapons and builds heavily detracts from replayability which kinda sucks.

Attached: 1523201242276.png (999x1017, 721K)

>Sekiro tops all of them with vastly superior mechanics.
>The lack of weapons and builds heavily detracts from replayability which kinda sucks.
Based retard.
The only reason why Sekiro was so fine tuned mechanically is exactly because the designers didn't need to concern themselves with balancing every encounter around various weapons.

Sure, but I mean that doesn't make me wrong

It is borderline impossible to have incredibly fleshed out and fine tuned combat mechanics along with high levels of customization. This is why all action games jettison away any semblance of RPG mechanics/style level progression.

Attached: God Hand 7-1.webm (640x360, 2.19M)

I think DMC does something along those lines. And maybe you're right, even adding another playstyle to a game like Sekiro might take the effort and resources to practically remake the whole game. However, it's still the same game every playthrough and as I result, at least in my experience, I've only gotten a few out of it versus Dark Souls and Bloodborne.

If the core gameplay is fun, does it really matter? Dark Souls 2 has the most loadout freedom, but I struggle to finish it even once, meanwhile I've beaten Sekiro three times already.

Bloodborne has the most soul of the series

No, that would be Demon's Souls. That game was made with absolutely zero outsider influence and was the game the team wanted to make.

>Demon's Souls was pretty good
Have you actually played it?

Yeah, multiple times and I don't think it's better than Dark Souls.

That's true. Although, I've played Sekiro several times, I guess I just find it a little boring for whatever reason.

While DeS does have some cool stuff that wasn't carried over into DaS, I honestly never understood how anyone could prefer it to DaS.

Not sure about soul, but it surely has most blood poured into it

The world felt more real and alive than anything created in the Souls games. The bosses had more puzzle elements to defeat them instead of just battles against giant fuckers who have fake tells and hit like freight trains.
I also liked that there were some unpolished elements that could potentially fuck your day up, specifically during PvP, but if you demonstrated the use of similar tactics, then it would function as mutual self destruction. Pic very much related.

Attached: 1565182268870.jpg (400x357, 54K)

One thing is really liked about demon's is how much weight some weapons have, the way your character struggles to wield the dragon bone smasher and the really loud impacts is pure sex

>He doesn't know

Attached: Dragon_greatsword.jpg (600x800, 199K)

Well it does for me.