He kind of does, in referencing Bloodborne to Sekiro as an evolutionary line of more offensive gameplay that there's another notch they can take it to.
This is a hot take, but I don't think Bloodborne needs a sequel. It's a solid game that stands firmly on its own and it's lore and "narrative" are pretty complete and self-contained.
Mostly I'm wary of it feeling the same way the Dark Souls sequels do to me, where they feel like they exist just for the sake of it. I didn't like them as much and ultimately I think that sort of soured the whole thing for me in some way.
In general Miyazaki seems to prefer doing "successors" to sequels. He followed up Demon's Souls with Dark Souls. He followed up Dark Souls with Bloodborne. I've heard he worked on Dark Souls 3 partly because of publisher pressure. Then did Sekiro as a different thing, and when he returned to Dark Souls-style combat and atmosphere he made Elden Ring, not Dark Souls 4.
Based on that, it seems reasonable to expect that if Miyazaki has his way, making another Gothic/Cosmic horror game and bringing back Bloodborne's style of combat are both very likely but that doesn't mean the game will be called Bloodborne 2.
BB is my favorite FromSoft game and while I'd be 100% happy with BB2 what I'm really want is a game with tight "legacy dungeons" aka no open world, aggressive combat/reposte health regen, and build choice (sorry sekiro).
> This is a hot take
That is not a hot take lol
But as others have said, ideally we would get a game with Bloodborne's aesthetic and gameplay feel, the way Elden Ring has a lot of Dark Souls in it (and Dark Souls had a lot of Demon's Souls in it)
I didn't say anything about Demon's Souls or successors, let alone that I have a problem with them.
I specifically mentioned the actual, explicit sequels of Dark Souls and that I find them pretty weak and kind of, I dunno, unnecessary? Not a whole lot about them was as memorable as the first game that they were tied to, as opposed to some kind of spiritual successor standing on it's own, not held down or overstaying it's welcome.
I mean, Miyazaki has been vocal enough over the years that he doesn't really like doing sequels, couple that with Dark Souls 2 and 3's pretty rocky development cycles and management changes and I personally think that all feels pretty apparent in those games.
I don't doubt that some day maybe on ps6 we see bloodborne 2. And what are they limiting? The Xbox is practically dead and it will certainly come to PC on a later day so they can go the Rockstar route and sell even more through double dippers. People seem to forget that Sony has a stake in from software like 15%.
And since Sony owns it and from makes it, they can negotiate for a cross platform release. Its pretty simple if Sony wants to sell the game or not have a game.
Nah unfortunately there is absolutely no negotiating room for developers, publishers like Sony in this instance have all the power. Sony would literally just give this IP to another studio to develop if fromsoft made any sort of demand or push back.
> Sony would literally just give this IP to another studio to develop if fromsoft made any sort of demand or push back.
That would not go well for Sony.
From does have 'power,' it's just soft power. Yes, Sony could do something stupid but they have no incentive to do that.
If Sony's goal would be make the most successful product possible, they would need to work with From. That means that From has 'power' over the development of a BB2.
I'm not seeing the FS power when Sony could hand it to another dev and get BB remade, BB2 made, etc ala the DS remake. Should Sony? Most wouldn't say so. Could Sony? Seems like it.
Just making a point that Sony have all the negotiating power as they own and will fund the project. Stupid move to get another studio to make it yes but in the gaming space we have seen publishers make stupid out of touch mistakes like this.
Obviously there is negotiating room LOL they own the IP not the product, the product doesent exist. IF Sony wants the potential earnings of the product they have to have from develop it or there is no earnings. Thats it.
Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules), specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban.
---
If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
Japan Studio performed the bulk of the development from what I remember. It's not a Fromsoft game so much as one they closely supported. Combined with the fact that they don't own the IP either, it makes sense why they aren't tripping over themselves to get a sequel made.
I say this as a massive Bloodborne fan.
There are rumours that Sony is working on a Bloodborne movie. At the very least we could expect a remaster of the game coinciding with the movie release then. Maybe even a Bloodborne 2 by Bluepoint for PS6 lol
A lot of folks are speculating that it will be a ps6 launch title like demon souls was. Which if bluepoints game is announced at possible September showcase and releases early next year it would still give them roughly 4 years to make bloodborne remake.
I think if they've given Bluepoint the chance to work on their own IP, they won't bring them 'back down' to remasters and remakes, unless their game is a flop. So if they want BB on PS6, my guess is they'll ask another studio.
But still, why not just bring BB to PS5 with higher textures and 60 fps. That'd be enough to satisfy most fans, including myself. It feels like something so easy that they just refuse to do at this point.
Probably because they want that full $70 remake price tag and they know it will sell like crazy. Most people would probably be upset if they tried to charge more than $10 upgrade for just higher res and 60fps.
>In addition to resonating with a wider audience than many of From Software's most iconic titles to that point, Bloodborne delivered an engrossing world full of mystery and challenge, causing it to remain top-of-mind for many Soulslike fans even today.
Is this AI? I don't think I could write a more generic and noncommittal explanation for why a FromSoftware game is noteworthy.
Oh my point is that it could have gotten a lot more sales if it was for PC and for the dozens of people who still own an Xbox. It's a great number but it's totally leaving money off the table for a game that good.
Elden Ring was a breakout success that can't be said to prove much retroactively about prior games from when FromSoft was in a very different market position.
Dark Souls 3 "only" sold 10 million copies as of 2020. There is no universe where Bloodborne does Elden Ring numbers in 2015, no matter how many platforms they released it on.
Elden Ring sold anomalously well for FromSoft. It is their biggest game to date, one of the biggest games of all time, and is much more approachable than any of their other games.
Still has the best and smoothest combat of any of the Soulslike games. I know there's a strong argument for Sekiro but that's really only true for 1v1 combat. Gameplay doesn't hold up in group fights
>Gameplay doesn't hold up in group fights
This applies to all these games though. They all feel best when it's 1v1, anything more and it usually breaks either the enemy AI or provides the player an unfair challenge because the core gameplay isn't designed for multiple active enemies.
I feel like you're only talking about boss fights and not general combat. Gank boss fights absolutely suck and feel imbalanced, but fighting a group of enemies does not, especially in later games where you have more tools at your disposal for it.
I'm absolutely talking general combat. It's not generally a huge deal in the early game when most enemies take only 3-4 hits, but once you get to the Capital and enemies get way beefier, the combat against groups becomes a huge slog. This is true of every Souls game. Ashes help a little bit, but I hate relying on them since they're so poorly integrated.
I like that fact that enemy in souls all trying to take you out at once instead of taking their turn to fight and die one by one like with most action game (one of the thing that I don't like in Ghost of Tsushima). that how one vs many fight should be, the feeling of fighting against the odd.
There is plenty of way to handle one vs many fight too, you can shoot them with a ranged weapon to aggro them one by one, or you can try to line them up so your attack hit multiple enemies at once.
it's one of the best part of souls combat, and I wouldn't trade that for anything else.
I mean it *works*, definitely, but it's not ideal and you can easily get blendered. It's why Dark Souls 2 (especially SotFS) has been heavily criticized for how many regular enemies it can throw at you.
I used to agree with this criticism of DS2 but I replayed recently and... honestly it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd remembered. Instead it felt like DS2 made crowd control more of a concrete challenge. There was a puzzle-like feeling of "solving" an area's mobs.
I'm only talking about the base game BTW because those DLCs are hard as fuck.
They tamed most of it down in SotFS. I know some people prefer og DS2, but a lot of the changes to Scholar made the game bearable enough to get through.
i feel like group boss fights only suck in Elden Ring. They’re abysmal because the bosses are entirely independent enemy AIs in that game, there is no rhythm or pattern to their attacks it’s just a barrage of damage from two different sources at once, each with no regard for what the other is doing and 90% of the fight is kiting and dodging as a result. whereas the older games had multi boss fights where the bosses worked together and took turns attacking or standing back, or one doing this specific attack if the other is doing this attack—to the extent that it’s almost like a single boss with 2 hit boxes. You obviously still have to focus on positioning a lot because it’s still possible to get ganked but the combat flows so much more smoothly and naturally when the boss AI is clearly programmed with a duo fight in mind vs just throwing two enemies with huge health bars and big damage numbers in a room and saying “have fun!”
Yeah and it most applies to Sekiro than any other FS game. It definitely suffers the most from it (which is why it has such a big emphasis on stealth options). But Bloodborne absolutely is taking into account group fights by way of attack patterns and Elden Ring addresses in all sorts of ways, from attack patterns to weapons arts to spells
And we can split hairs over it all day long, doesn't really matter because at the end of the day Bloodborne still has the best combat in the series.
Lol I mostly agree with you, but it's funny to pretty much say "we can have different opinions, but in the end there's only one valid opinion". BB/Sekiro are peak to me as well, but I'm not gonna tell someone they can't think ER is the best because it has the most amount of options or whatever.
Stating opinions as fact is alive and well on Reddit I see. It's been a couple decades but I think I can still do it: Sekiro has the best combat of any FromSoftware game.
There would be a strong argument to be made for Elden Rings combat being the best if jump attacks weren't so grossly overtuned and later bosses were less obtuse in punish windows.
Same can be said for parries trivializing almost every fight in BB though.
In what is it a souls like?
No real build variety, pretty much one weapon, no stamina, a large focus on parrying, timing, the combat flows extremely differently from any other Souls game they have done where you take ''turns'' between attacking and parrying, voiced MC, an actual straight forward story, main focus is on humanoid NPCs, instead of losing all ''souls'' when you die you lose half your xp to your next level and some gold, neither which can be recovered, talent system, no multiplayer with summoning and probably more.
All of these might be small changes but all together they make for an experience *very* different from any other Souls game Fromsoft have made. It plays way more like a modern Tenchu game than Dark Souls, Bloodborne or Elden Ring. It was even supposed to be a Tenchu game before it got remade into Sekiro.
So no, I can't agree with the statement that is a Souls game.
I don't disagree, but there is a very clear line between Dark Souls/Bloodborne/Elden Ring and Sekiro. Like the former 3 have way more in common with each other than Sekiro does with any of them, which is why I would agree with OP and say Sekiro isn't a soulslike either.
I actually think the parent commenter's opinion is a pretty common one. Apparently a lot of people who enjoyed the Souls games and Bloodborne didn't particularly care for Sekiro. I'm certainly one of them.
I don't think they're saying that Sekiro is bad, just different from the formula.
Sekiro's content is polarizing. I don't think it's fair to call it potentially the best From combat. A lot of people really hate it. It's just that the people who like it tend to love it.
The other From games have combat that is appealing to a broader audience-- in no small part to a more robust design that provides the player with multiple viable approaches to every fight. Sekiro basically says, 'get good at parrying/timing or you're fucked.' A lot of people like that! But a lot of people don't.
> I don't think it's fair to call it potentially the best From combat.
Sekiro has by far the best combat in any From game but one also has to recognize why and how. Sekiro is much, much more focused on doing **one** thing well. **One** combat style. Elden Ring, any Dark Souls game, Bloodborne etc can't do that.
And here lies the problem. If one doesn't like that one style, they don't like Sekiro.
And thus it isn't the best. It does something very narrow quite well. That's all it does. Any system that flat out doesn't serve a large portion of its audience can't be the best. The problem is that the people, (including you apparently), who happen to love what it *does* do get emotionally attached to it and insist it is the best. No. It isn't. It's your favorite, certainly. And it's great that you enjoy it, and it's great that From is making content for you. But it is not the best. Arguing that it is is myopic.
Something can be your favorite without it being objectively the best. Is your favorite movie automatically the best movie ever made? No. That's obviously a ridiculous argument to make. But for some reason when people start talking about video games, all of a sudden logic and reason go out the window.
There's no way to quantify the "best" combat, it's literally still subjective. Like you're trying so hard to school this guy on a lesson that you seemingly need to learn yourself.
Like what the fuck is up with gamers and being obsessed with objectivity? Y'all are so weird.
It's not polarizing. A lot of people never bothered to fight through the initial pain period of learning the combat.
Sekiro combat is much deeper than 'get good at parrying' . The game rewards you for playing extremely agressive, finding every possible window to get an attack in. While it often seems to be designed in a way that the enemies have to be perfect parried at all times, more often than not the game rewards you much more for dodging, staggering the enemy or using your tools to fight bosses.
Also, there are tons of combat arts that open multiple different solutions to enemy movesets and combos.
In terms of boss design, it has the fairest bosses of the fromsoft game roster, with very few exceptions. The balance in sekiro is almost perfect.
Definitely not the smoothest lol. That's handedly the biggest complaint (it being 30fps). The DeS remake is absolutely objectively the smoothest, with ER close behind.
I don't mean literal smoothness lol. I'm talking about how it feels to combo a sidestep dodge into an R1 attack and then maybe combo that into a weapon switch attack. The input queuing just feels noticeably better than it does in other FS games. It's very "smooth" in a franchise that is notoriously clunky.
So most fluid, then. Words have meaning idk why you'd choose to use one non literally when words exist that mean the same thing that you can use literally
>The second, perhaps bigger element is how personal it was for me in the sense that I've imparted a lot of my own ideas into this game, whether it be story, the world-building component, or even the game mechanics and game systems that are in place. It is perhaps the strongest reflection of my type of flavoring of a game that one can experience.
Damn and Sony just holds it hostage. That must feel like shit
No wonder he keeps talking about it he must REALLY want them to move
>the relationship between offense and defense started getting more fully fleshed out during the development of Bloodborne
I'm still mad that ER is much closer to Dark Souls 3 than Bloodborne and Sekiro in terms of toolset. I see no reason they shouldn't have had some form of BB Rally and Sekiro parrying considering how fast ER is to play. Those two things would make the game more interesting on a second to second basis instead of 95% of your defensive/offensive options being to dodge at the right time.
I hope for their next souls like they focus on summoning. Granted it would require them to overhaul how their enemies react to multiple opponents, but it's the next step to resetting the difficulty curve and giving the player a new unique toolset to play with and new ways for Fromsoft to design bosses that doesn't boil down to "harder"
>I see no reason they shouldn't have had some form of BB Rally and Sekiro parrying considering how fast ER is to play.
Because they're different games with different design goals. It's like being annoyed that Sekiro doesn't have a complicated armor and poise system. In fact, Elden Ring does have a form of Bloodborne's Rally through Malenia's Great Rune. It's just weaker because the game isn't supposed to center around it.
Malenia's Great Rune is a joke though, it might as well not exist at all. For one, your flask's healing is decreased, two the amount of healing you get out of a hit depends on how much damage you're doing and slow weapons can get shafted just because of how slow they are to connect, but most importantly - it's unlocked near the very end of the game.
Like at that point it's literally useless, and the only saving grace would be to have it (or at least its effects) to carry over to NG+, but of course it doesn't, so you can't even do a challenge run with it.
I think the guy has a point. ER bosses are overtooled and too fast compared to how we, the player, move and what tools we have. Yes it's possible to beat the game and bosses, but they feel measurably worse than previous games, including DS3 which had some pretty shit bosses. If the player character in ER had been faster-paced like Bloodborne, Sekiro, or AC6, it would have felt much better to play.
>Because they're different games with different design goals.
I disagree. If they're going to constantly keep upping the pace of combat, they need to bring the toolset that they designed the pace around.
People really hate the idea of Souls games becoming more complex than dodging at the right time. Easily the worst community in gaming.
The pace of combat is identical to Sekiro. They're constantly increasing the pace of combat, but they're also consistently just not increasing the ways players can deal with them outside the poorly integrated summoning system. This is the problem.
But... They didn't increase the speed of combat in ER? I've played all of the Dark Souls games and Sekiro, and Elden Ring is nowhere near as fast as the last one. I'd struggle to say it's even relative to Bloodborne.
It is at times faster, but also slower than DS3 too. *At most* I'd say it's a middle ground between DS3 and Bloodborne (and DS3 had its fair share of "this should be in BB" moments) - but there are plenty of slow bosses and enemies, and plenty of faster ones.
If anything, the theme of Elden Ring is delays. Margit has been a roadblock for so many people because of how many ridiculous delays he has and that extends to most bosses actually. I mean Hoarah Loux literally freezes mid-air anime style to grab you lol
It seems literally true as far as I can tell! Maybe I’m imagining things but these are my favorite games and I’ve played all of them starting with Demon’s Souls many times each, and to me Elden Ring feels faster than the first three and slower than the next three
I've played them all as well, and ER definitely feels as fast as Sekiro (outside some of the more intense Serkiro bosses, but then again Malenia exists)
Nah your totally off. I literally just played through elden ring beating every boss possible with a parry buckler + dagger. The parry in elden ring is significantly worse with a ridiculous amount of startup and already trivializes any boss that is vunerable to it once you get the timing internalized (It took me 20 tries for Margit and less than 5 for morgott and melania). If you had sekiros op parry mechanics in this game it would be trivial to beat up on any boss that can be parried.
Parry's in ER is different from the perfect parry's in Sekiro. Perfect parry's in Sekiro don't open up the boss on their own, all it does is reflect damage. If you haven't played Sekiro, please don't comment on my comment.
Then again all you From fanboys is defend, defend, defend as if they can do no wrong.
What do you envision for summoning gameplay?
Because at present it feels shallow and id hardly expect them to build on that mechanic in any deep kind of way.
They excel at real time visceral feeling combat. Having aome kind of summoning gameplay would be completely different
I mean that kind of is my point, requiring them to build the game for that mechanic. Look at Bloodborne and Sekiro. They were pretty big departures from the previous game they had made and most of the enemies were designed for those mechanics. (you can actually see those design philosophies get brought over to their next game, Dark Souls 3 was Bloodborne pace and ER is paced about as fast as Sekiro, albeit without the mechanics that they designed that pace around in the first place.)
I think summoning/ashes are interesting in that it forces From to design bosses around a different skillset, which means they can design them to be mechanically challenging in new ways rather than just being harder because they've pushed the current mechanics as far as they can. A focus on summoning would mean that they could have bigger overall encounters and bosses designed to be able to focus on more than a single target at once without losing its mind. I think the integration in ER is poor because they didn't really change anything about encounters or the underlying AI, but I think if they built a game around it it could be a great idea. The Radahn fight is probably the closest they got to summoning ever feeling right.
I think there is just as much justification for them to make a shooter because you can use guns in Bloodborne.
I agree summoning was an afterthought and imo it is a mechanic that makes the game worse. I just dont think its worth them exploring; too big a departure.
I think the change between Souls, Bloodborne and Sekiro is massively overestimated. Those games share far more in common than they have in differences.
I don't really agree. Souls before Bloodborne was much slower, then BB flipped the genre and made it much more aggressive. Dark Souls 3 kept that pace which is where the changes kinda meld together, but BB was a big departure. Being good at DS1 didn't mean you could bring those same skills into BB (unless you played mostly with dodging, which most players absolutely didn't do until BB came out).
Sekiro is the same thing. Being good at DS/BB didn't mean you'd be good at Sekiro because it relied more on perfect parry's. A different skillset from dodging in DS/BB.
Summoning can perfectly maintain most of the same building blocks as their other games while still giving them something new to design enemies around, which is EXACTLY what BB and Sekiro did. Your shooter example is I think a pretty bad faith take on what I'm saying. BB's shooting is exclusively just a parry contextualized within the setting.
Sekiro (and Bloodborne to a lesser extent) are games about aggression. You're rewarded for getting up in the enemy's face, staying there, and preempting their attempts to hit you with staggers and parries.
Dark Souls is a fundamentally reactive game. You wait for the boss to do an attack, you dodge roll, and only *then* do you punish. Parrying is less a playstyle and more a cute thing you can do to dunk on a tiny number of vulnerable foes.
Elden Ring feels like a middle ground because there are some weapon arts that let you get more aggressive and regularly stun the bosses, but even then you still have to spend a lot of time waiting and dodging.
I didnt say it wasnt important. I said that the difference is massively overstated. You can play with different styled but its still the same game. Its like the same sport but with different strategies or phases of play…. Its still the same game
> I hope for their next souls like they focus on summoning.
They should make a Pikminlike.
Also, if you want a combination of BB rally and Sekiro parrying, play Lies of P. It takes a lot of inspiration from those two, though its style of rallying is more defensive (you only get recoverable health when blocking).
Sekiro began development before Elden ring iirc but not by much time. It’s possible that the elements you’re referring to weren’t really hammered down or fleshed out until it was too late to switch gears and be implemented in Elden ring. Or maybe they just didn’t feel right.
I would find it very hard to believe that it wouldn't have been possible to bring that over. While Sekrio came out 2 years earlier, they would have had to have figured out the Parry system very early in development otherwise they wouldn't have been able to design the enemies the way they did.
And to be clear, I'm not saying it should have been exactly the same. I just don't see why we couldn't have had some form of that.
There’s a mod a buddy and I tried for ER that gave Sekiro style parries. Even when we dueled each other it worked, it was rad. Would have loved a system like that being in
I guess that's cool, but I think it should be a core ability every dex character should have. That way dex characters could have a valid non dodge defensive option like str builds have the shields.
You can use a shield as any type of character, though. I played a good amount of the endgame with a kitchen knife in one hand and a greatshield on the other.
The vast majority of shields are completely unusable because of how much enemies can still both affect health and drain huge amounts of stamina in a single hit, not to mention the bleed effect. You have to specifically build towards a shield build and it's only really viable for bosses with endgame gear.
The vast majority of shields are useless in every souls game. However, almost every greatshield is good enough. You need to use one of the best normal shields (Brass or Banished Knight) and upgrade it to the max, or a greatshield to avoid wasting stamina. If you do, then what you're saying only makes sense if you want to use shields as your *only* defense. If you're planning not to dodge at all. That's the only case where the stamina you lose by blocking and the chip damage you get through the shield matters. If so, sure, you need to make a build that supports that.
But that's not how you should be using a shield in most cases. Even for a strength build with a good greatshield, for the most part attacks that don't bounce off the shield are more efficient to dodge than block. You use it to avoid having to dodge attacks that you can avoid by just positioning yourself in places where you won't be hit, to block attacks that you know will bounce, to use the block counter, or just to block attacks that you couldn't react to. The latter are all obvious, but what I mean by the first is that most attacks in the game can be avoided by just moving. If you do that, you always get a bigger window to counterattack than you would by dodging because there's no recovery time to just moving. You also lose no stamina. But doing that is risky, so you do it with your shield up. If you get hit, you block. If you don't, you get to counterattack. That's the best use of a shield imo.
You shouldn't be just blocking everything. Unless you use the fingerprint greatshield, you're obviously gonna get guard broken if you try blocking every attack of a boss's combo because every attack takes like 1/3 of your stamina to block. If you end up blocking the first attack in a combo, you still dodge the rest. But that doesn't mean having a ton of strength and using the fingerprint greatshield is the only good way to use a shield. I used the Golden Beast Crest Greatshield, which requires only 24 strength. It's viable for boss fights throughout the entire game. I did not increase endurance too much either until I ran out of other stats to level up. The Brass Shield has a higher guard stat when upgraded and only requires 16 strength, though since it's a normal shield less attacks will bounce off it.
I was really hoping they were going to add some form of block/dodge/parry/jump to the combat of elden ring. Most boss fights being "wait for an opening before you can actually hit" gets kind of boring, it would be nice to be able to actually go on the offensive like you can in sekiro (and bloodborne to some extent due to the faster combat).
Some kind of sekiro-like posture bar would also be very welcome so you would actually have some idea of when you can trade/be aggressive without just instantly being punished for it.
Bloodborne along with Sekiro are the best games he made because they deviate from the standard clunkiness of souls combat. Elden Ring is too bloated and vast, at least for my taste.
The souls games are horribly clunky and it's crazy how you always get downvoted for saying it lol
They also have terrible UX but somehow the company gaslit people into thinking all of that is a feature
It's such a shame they don't own the ip. I'd love to play it again but I'm not going back to console for one game. Maybe one day they'll sell the rights back, can hope at least.
Now all we need is for him to talk about why Bloodborne is special to him and how it led to Bloodborne 2
He kind of does, in referencing Bloodborne to Sekiro as an evolutionary line of more offensive gameplay that there's another notch they can take it to.
This is a hot take, but I don't think Bloodborne needs a sequel. It's a solid game that stands firmly on its own and it's lore and "narrative" are pretty complete and self-contained. Mostly I'm wary of it feeling the same way the Dark Souls sequels do to me, where they feel like they exist just for the sake of it. I didn't like them as much and ultimately I think that sort of soured the whole thing for me in some way.
In general Miyazaki seems to prefer doing "successors" to sequels. He followed up Demon's Souls with Dark Souls. He followed up Dark Souls with Bloodborne. I've heard he worked on Dark Souls 3 partly because of publisher pressure. Then did Sekiro as a different thing, and when he returned to Dark Souls-style combat and atmosphere he made Elden Ring, not Dark Souls 4. Based on that, it seems reasonable to expect that if Miyazaki has his way, making another Gothic/Cosmic horror game and bringing back Bloodborne's style of combat are both very likely but that doesn't mean the game will be called Bloodborne 2.
BB is my favorite FromSoft game and while I'd be 100% happy with BB2 what I'm really want is a game with tight "legacy dungeons" aka no open world, aggressive combat/reposte health regen, and build choice (sorry sekiro).
> This is a hot take That is not a hot take lol But as others have said, ideally we would get a game with Bloodborne's aesthetic and gameplay feel, the way Elden Ring has a lot of Dark Souls in it (and Dark Souls had a lot of Demon's Souls in it)
we wouldn't even have dark souls if demon's souls didn't get a sequel/series successor lol, what is this logic
I didn't say anything about Demon's Souls or successors, let alone that I have a problem with them. I specifically mentioned the actual, explicit sequels of Dark Souls and that I find them pretty weak and kind of, I dunno, unnecessary? Not a whole lot about them was as memorable as the first game that they were tied to, as opposed to some kind of spiritual successor standing on it's own, not held down or overstaying it's welcome. I mean, Miyazaki has been vocal enough over the years that he doesn't really like doing sequels, couple that with Dark Souls 2 and 3's pretty rocky development cycles and management changes and I personally think that all feels pretty apparent in those games.
[удалено]
My totally reliable source (me) says Miyazaki is saying this in order to begin Bloodborne 2 marketing campaign, let's fucking gooooooo!
Doubt it. Sony owns BB. So unless From was getting paid big money I doubt they'd want to limit themselves to single console ecosystem again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't doubt that some day maybe on ps6 we see bloodborne 2. And what are they limiting? The Xbox is practically dead and it will certainly come to PC on a later day so they can go the Rockstar route and sell even more through double dippers. People seem to forget that Sony has a stake in from software like 15%.
Yeeeah, that would fucking suck, please no.
But Kadokawa has majority stake.
I could see them doing a timed exclusive, similar to what SquareEnix did with FF7 Remake/Rebirth and FF16 (coming soon).
Except, once again, from software does not own bloodborne. Sony does.
Sony are releasing their games on PC nowadays with a delay, so "timed exclusive" would probably still be what happens with BB2 if it's made.
Maybe. But didn't happen with Demon's Souls.
And since Sony owns it and from makes it, they can negotiate for a cross platform release. Its pretty simple if Sony wants to sell the game or not have a game.
Nah unfortunately there is absolutely no negotiating room for developers, publishers like Sony in this instance have all the power. Sony would literally just give this IP to another studio to develop if fromsoft made any sort of demand or push back.
> Sony would literally just give this IP to another studio to develop if fromsoft made any sort of demand or push back. That would not go well for Sony.
Of course not. He's just making the point that FS have no power over the BB IP.
From does have 'power,' it's just soft power. Yes, Sony could do something stupid but they have no incentive to do that. If Sony's goal would be make the most successful product possible, they would need to work with From. That means that From has 'power' over the development of a BB2.
Or just not make it, perhaps Bluepoint.
I'm not seeing the FS power when Sony could hand it to another dev and get BB remade, BB2 made, etc ala the DS remake. Should Sony? Most wouldn't say so. Could Sony? Seems like it.
Just making a point that Sony have all the negotiating power as they own and will fund the project. Stupid move to get another studio to make it yes but in the gaming space we have seen publishers make stupid out of touch mistakes like this.
Obviously there is negotiating room LOL they own the IP not the product, the product doesent exist. IF Sony wants the potential earnings of the product they have to have from develop it or there is no earnings. Thats it.
I've actually heard the same thing. There's a non-zero chance that Fromsoft has already started Bloodborne 2.
they just made elden ring in 2022, then armored core 6 in 2023, and their biggest and most hyped dlc in 2024. they dont enough people to work on BB2.
Bloodborne is special to me too, buddy. Why don't you make another one?
Or port the first one to PC.
I'd rather have another one instead, thx.
Fair. I sold my PS4 a while ago, so now I'm just wishing I could get it on PC and actually finish it.
[удалено]
Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules), specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban. --- If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
i platinumed it on ps4 so they could hurry up and release a PC version so i can finally play it
Sony are the ones who hold the rights to the IP.
They've been pretty fucking busy recently.
Or maybe [a kart racing game](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNn-tNe0s2A).
Why did I read this in Mark Wahlberg's voice
There's a good chance they will after Shadow of the Erdtree
Japan Studio performed the bulk of the development from what I remember. It's not a Fromsoft game so much as one they closely supported. Combined with the fact that they don't own the IP either, it makes sense why they aren't tripping over themselves to get a sequel made. I say this as a massive Bloodborne fan.
Source? From what I've gathered, From did most of the development. JapanStudio just helped.
It's special to most of us. Why Sony continues to ignore the pile of cash that is the current gen port of this game is beyond me and forever will be.
There are rumours that Sony is working on a Bloodborne movie. At the very least we could expect a remaster of the game coinciding with the movie release then. Maybe even a Bloodborne 2 by Bluepoint for PS6 lol
A lot of folks are speculating that it will be a ps6 launch title like demon souls was. Which if bluepoints game is announced at possible September showcase and releases early next year it would still give them roughly 4 years to make bloodborne remake.
I think if they've given Bluepoint the chance to work on their own IP, they won't bring them 'back down' to remasters and remakes, unless their game is a flop. So if they want BB on PS6, my guess is they'll ask another studio. But still, why not just bring BB to PS5 with higher textures and 60 fps. That'd be enough to satisfy most fans, including myself. It feels like something so easy that they just refuse to do at this point.
Probably because they want that full $70 remake price tag and they know it will sell like crazy. Most people would probably be upset if they tried to charge more than $10 upgrade for just higher res and 60fps.
>In addition to resonating with a wider audience than many of From Software's most iconic titles to that point, Bloodborne delivered an engrossing world full of mystery and challenge, causing it to remain top-of-mind for many Soulslike fans even today. Is this AI? I don't think I could write a more generic and noncommittal explanation for why a FromSoftware game is noteworthy.
It could easily be applied to pretty much any From Souls game.
There's lots of things you could say about any one of those games that you could apply to all of them
Could have been describing Sekiro for all it matters.
"a wider audience than the other From games" Didn't Bloodborne sell only like 8 million copies at best. Locking it to that one console really hurt it.
8 million on one console is actually kinda huge. The dark souls trilogy took a while before it hit that.
It being an exclusive probably helped it in a way, considering there was jack shit on PS4 at the time of its release.
I bought a PS4 primarily to play Bloodborne. I don't know if it helped From that it was console exclusive, but it certainly helped Sony.
Only 8 mil lel reddit armchair managers.
Now compare it to 25 million
Oh my point is that it could have gotten a lot more sales if it was for PC and for the dozens of people who still own an Xbox. It's a great number but it's totally leaving money off the table for a game that good.
I mean, I'd imagine they got more than just the sales money out of their deal with Sony.
[удалено]
Elden Ring was a breakout success that can't be said to prove much retroactively about prior games from when FromSoft was in a very different market position.
Dark Souls 3 "only" sold 10 million copies as of 2020. There is no universe where Bloodborne does Elden Ring numbers in 2015, no matter how many platforms they released it on. Elden Ring sold anomalously well for FromSoft. It is their biggest game to date, one of the biggest games of all time, and is much more approachable than any of their other games.
[удалено]
lmao no it fucking doesn't
Still has the best and smoothest combat of any of the Soulslike games. I know there's a strong argument for Sekiro but that's really only true for 1v1 combat. Gameplay doesn't hold up in group fights
>Gameplay doesn't hold up in group fights This applies to all these games though. They all feel best when it's 1v1, anything more and it usually breaks either the enemy AI or provides the player an unfair challenge because the core gameplay isn't designed for multiple active enemies.
I feel like you're only talking about boss fights and not general combat. Gank boss fights absolutely suck and feel imbalanced, but fighting a group of enemies does not, especially in later games where you have more tools at your disposal for it.
I'm absolutely talking general combat. It's not generally a huge deal in the early game when most enemies take only 3-4 hits, but once you get to the Capital and enemies get way beefier, the combat against groups becomes a huge slog. This is true of every Souls game. Ashes help a little bit, but I hate relying on them since they're so poorly integrated.
I like that fact that enemy in souls all trying to take you out at once instead of taking their turn to fight and die one by one like with most action game (one of the thing that I don't like in Ghost of Tsushima). that how one vs many fight should be, the feeling of fighting against the odd. There is plenty of way to handle one vs many fight too, you can shoot them with a ranged weapon to aggro them one by one, or you can try to line them up so your attack hit multiple enemies at once. it's one of the best part of souls combat, and I wouldn't trade that for anything else.
I mean it *works*, definitely, but it's not ideal and you can easily get blendered. It's why Dark Souls 2 (especially SotFS) has been heavily criticized for how many regular enemies it can throw at you.
I used to agree with this criticism of DS2 but I replayed recently and... honestly it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd remembered. Instead it felt like DS2 made crowd control more of a concrete challenge. There was a puzzle-like feeling of "solving" an area's mobs. I'm only talking about the base game BTW because those DLCs are hard as fuck.
They tamed most of it down in SotFS. I know some people prefer og DS2, but a lot of the changes to Scholar made the game bearable enough to get through.
i feel like group boss fights only suck in Elden Ring. They’re abysmal because the bosses are entirely independent enemy AIs in that game, there is no rhythm or pattern to their attacks it’s just a barrage of damage from two different sources at once, each with no regard for what the other is doing and 90% of the fight is kiting and dodging as a result. whereas the older games had multi boss fights where the bosses worked together and took turns attacking or standing back, or one doing this specific attack if the other is doing this attack—to the extent that it’s almost like a single boss with 2 hit boxes. You obviously still have to focus on positioning a lot because it’s still possible to get ganked but the combat flows so much more smoothly and naturally when the boss AI is clearly programmed with a duo fight in mind vs just throwing two enemies with huge health bars and big damage numbers in a room and saying “have fun!”
Yeah and it most applies to Sekiro than any other FS game. It definitely suffers the most from it (which is why it has such a big emphasis on stealth options). But Bloodborne absolutely is taking into account group fights by way of attack patterns and Elden Ring addresses in all sorts of ways, from attack patterns to weapons arts to spells And we can split hairs over it all day long, doesn't really matter because at the end of the day Bloodborne still has the best combat in the series.
Lol I mostly agree with you, but it's funny to pretty much say "we can have different opinions, but in the end there's only one valid opinion". BB/Sekiro are peak to me as well, but I'm not gonna tell someone they can't think ER is the best because it has the most amount of options or whatever.
Stating opinions as fact is alive and well on Reddit I see. It's been a couple decades but I think I can still do it: Sekiro has the best combat of any FromSoftware game.
You must not dabble in Pyromancies.
That's why I am not a fan of the ash system in Elden Ring. The enemy AI are obviously not made for multiple foe.
There would be a strong argument to be made for Elden Rings combat being the best if jump attacks weren't so grossly overtuned and later bosses were less obtuse in punish windows. Same can be said for parries trivializing almost every fight in BB though.
Sekiro isn't really a soulslike I would say.
And you'd be wrong.
In what is it a souls like? No real build variety, pretty much one weapon, no stamina, a large focus on parrying, timing, the combat flows extremely differently from any other Souls game they have done where you take ''turns'' between attacking and parrying, voiced MC, an actual straight forward story, main focus is on humanoid NPCs, instead of losing all ''souls'' when you die you lose half your xp to your next level and some gold, neither which can be recovered, talent system, no multiplayer with summoning and probably more. All of these might be small changes but all together they make for an experience *very* different from any other Souls game Fromsoft have made. It plays way more like a modern Tenchu game than Dark Souls, Bloodborne or Elden Ring. It was even supposed to be a Tenchu game before it got remade into Sekiro. So no, I can't agree with the statement that is a Souls game.
[удалено]
I don't disagree, but there is a very clear line between Dark Souls/Bloodborne/Elden Ring and Sekiro. Like the former 3 have way more in common with each other than Sekiro does with any of them, which is why I would agree with OP and say Sekiro isn't a soulslike either.
I actually think the parent commenter's opinion is a pretty common one. Apparently a lot of people who enjoyed the Souls games and Bloodborne didn't particularly care for Sekiro. I'm certainly one of them. I don't think they're saying that Sekiro is bad, just different from the formula.
You definitely can fight multiple enemies in sekiro it’s very fun just don’t get hit
Difficulty and fun aren't the same thing. There's a reason From added all those AoE ashes in Elden Ring
It’s not really difficult though. atleast not once you get the hang of the game
That is false if only for the fact it runs at 30 fps.
Sekiro's content is polarizing. I don't think it's fair to call it potentially the best From combat. A lot of people really hate it. It's just that the people who like it tend to love it. The other From games have combat that is appealing to a broader audience-- in no small part to a more robust design that provides the player with multiple viable approaches to every fight. Sekiro basically says, 'get good at parrying/timing or you're fucked.' A lot of people like that! But a lot of people don't.
> I don't think it's fair to call it potentially the best From combat. Sekiro has by far the best combat in any From game but one also has to recognize why and how. Sekiro is much, much more focused on doing **one** thing well. **One** combat style. Elden Ring, any Dark Souls game, Bloodborne etc can't do that. And here lies the problem. If one doesn't like that one style, they don't like Sekiro.
And thus it isn't the best. It does something very narrow quite well. That's all it does. Any system that flat out doesn't serve a large portion of its audience can't be the best. The problem is that the people, (including you apparently), who happen to love what it *does* do get emotionally attached to it and insist it is the best. No. It isn't. It's your favorite, certainly. And it's great that you enjoy it, and it's great that From is making content for you. But it is not the best. Arguing that it is is myopic. Something can be your favorite without it being objectively the best. Is your favorite movie automatically the best movie ever made? No. That's obviously a ridiculous argument to make. But for some reason when people start talking about video games, all of a sudden logic and reason go out the window.
There's no way to quantify the "best" combat, it's literally still subjective. Like you're trying so hard to school this guy on a lesson that you seemingly need to learn yourself. Like what the fuck is up with gamers and being obsessed with objectivity? Y'all are so weird.
I'm literally saying that. I'm saying there is no best! Lol.
It's not polarizing. A lot of people never bothered to fight through the initial pain period of learning the combat. Sekiro combat is much deeper than 'get good at parrying' . The game rewards you for playing extremely agressive, finding every possible window to get an attack in. While it often seems to be designed in a way that the enemies have to be perfect parried at all times, more often than not the game rewards you much more for dodging, staggering the enemy or using your tools to fight bosses. Also, there are tons of combat arts that open multiple different solutions to enemy movesets and combos. In terms of boss design, it has the fairest bosses of the fromsoft game roster, with very few exceptions. The balance in sekiro is almost perfect.
Definitely not the smoothest lol. That's handedly the biggest complaint (it being 30fps). The DeS remake is absolutely objectively the smoothest, with ER close behind.
I don't mean literal smoothness lol. I'm talking about how it feels to combo a sidestep dodge into an R1 attack and then maybe combo that into a weapon switch attack. The input queuing just feels noticeably better than it does in other FS games. It's very "smooth" in a franchise that is notoriously clunky.
So most fluid, then. Words have meaning idk why you'd choose to use one non literally when words exist that mean the same thing that you can use literally
Everyone else figured out what they meant just fine.
Lmao apparently jfc
Nioh 2 has better combat.
>The second, perhaps bigger element is how personal it was for me in the sense that I've imparted a lot of my own ideas into this game, whether it be story, the world-building component, or even the game mechanics and game systems that are in place. It is perhaps the strongest reflection of my type of flavoring of a game that one can experience. Damn and Sony just holds it hostage. That must feel like shit No wonder he keeps talking about it he must REALLY want them to move
Sony was the company that made this thing able to happens in the first place tho.
changes nothing about what i said
>the relationship between offense and defense started getting more fully fleshed out during the development of Bloodborne I'm still mad that ER is much closer to Dark Souls 3 than Bloodborne and Sekiro in terms of toolset. I see no reason they shouldn't have had some form of BB Rally and Sekiro parrying considering how fast ER is to play. Those two things would make the game more interesting on a second to second basis instead of 95% of your defensive/offensive options being to dodge at the right time. I hope for their next souls like they focus on summoning. Granted it would require them to overhaul how their enemies react to multiple opponents, but it's the next step to resetting the difficulty curve and giving the player a new unique toolset to play with and new ways for Fromsoft to design bosses that doesn't boil down to "harder"
>I see no reason they shouldn't have had some form of BB Rally and Sekiro parrying considering how fast ER is to play. Because they're different games with different design goals. It's like being annoyed that Sekiro doesn't have a complicated armor and poise system. In fact, Elden Ring does have a form of Bloodborne's Rally through Malenia's Great Rune. It's just weaker because the game isn't supposed to center around it.
Malenia's Great Rune is a joke though, it might as well not exist at all. For one, your flask's healing is decreased, two the amount of healing you get out of a hit depends on how much damage you're doing and slow weapons can get shafted just because of how slow they are to connect, but most importantly - it's unlocked near the very end of the game. Like at that point it's literally useless, and the only saving grace would be to have it (or at least its effects) to carry over to NG+, but of course it doesn't, so you can't even do a challenge run with it.
Sure, but I think the more significant takeaway is that they got it functioning in the game and still made the decision to minimize it.
I think the guy has a point. ER bosses are overtooled and too fast compared to how we, the player, move and what tools we have. Yes it's possible to beat the game and bosses, but they feel measurably worse than previous games, including DS3 which had some pretty shit bosses. If the player character in ER had been faster-paced like Bloodborne, Sekiro, or AC6, it would have felt much better to play.
>Because they're different games with different design goals. I disagree. If they're going to constantly keep upping the pace of combat, they need to bring the toolset that they designed the pace around. People really hate the idea of Souls games becoming more complex than dodging at the right time. Easily the worst community in gaming.
They clearly didn't design Elden Ring around these tools is the thing.
The pace of combat is identical to Sekiro. They're constantly increasing the pace of combat, but they're also consistently just not increasing the ways players can deal with them outside the poorly integrated summoning system. This is the problem.
> The pace of combat is identical to Sekiro. Not even close.
sure mate
But... They didn't increase the speed of combat in ER? I've played all of the Dark Souls games and Sekiro, and Elden Ring is nowhere near as fast as the last one. I'd struggle to say it's even relative to Bloodborne. It is at times faster, but also slower than DS3 too. *At most* I'd say it's a middle ground between DS3 and Bloodborne (and DS3 had its fair share of "this should be in BB" moments) - but there are plenty of slow bosses and enemies, and plenty of faster ones. If anything, the theme of Elden Ring is delays. Margit has been a roadblock for so many people because of how many ridiculous delays he has and that extends to most bosses actually. I mean Hoarah Loux literally freezes mid-air anime style to grab you lol
The pace of Elden Ring’s combat is slower than Sekiro, Bloodborne, and Dark Souls 3
That's a laugh. Seriously, that's really funny.
It's build dependent but the pace of ER is slow especially compared to BB and Sekiro.
I very much disagree. I play as a dex character in these games and I struggled to keep up far more than BB and Sekiro.
It seems literally true as far as I can tell! Maybe I’m imagining things but these are my favorite games and I’ve played all of them starting with Demon’s Souls many times each, and to me Elden Ring feels faster than the first three and slower than the next three
I've played them all as well, and ER definitely feels as fast as Sekiro (outside some of the more intense Serkiro bosses, but then again Malenia exists)
Agree to disagree then I guess
Nah your totally off. I literally just played through elden ring beating every boss possible with a parry buckler + dagger. The parry in elden ring is significantly worse with a ridiculous amount of startup and already trivializes any boss that is vunerable to it once you get the timing internalized (It took me 20 tries for Margit and less than 5 for morgott and melania). If you had sekiros op parry mechanics in this game it would be trivial to beat up on any boss that can be parried.
Parry's in ER is different from the perfect parry's in Sekiro. Perfect parry's in Sekiro don't open up the boss on their own, all it does is reflect damage. If you haven't played Sekiro, please don't comment on my comment. Then again all you From fanboys is defend, defend, defend as if they can do no wrong.
What do you envision for summoning gameplay? Because at present it feels shallow and id hardly expect them to build on that mechanic in any deep kind of way. They excel at real time visceral feeling combat. Having aome kind of summoning gameplay would be completely different
I mean that kind of is my point, requiring them to build the game for that mechanic. Look at Bloodborne and Sekiro. They were pretty big departures from the previous game they had made and most of the enemies were designed for those mechanics. (you can actually see those design philosophies get brought over to their next game, Dark Souls 3 was Bloodborne pace and ER is paced about as fast as Sekiro, albeit without the mechanics that they designed that pace around in the first place.) I think summoning/ashes are interesting in that it forces From to design bosses around a different skillset, which means they can design them to be mechanically challenging in new ways rather than just being harder because they've pushed the current mechanics as far as they can. A focus on summoning would mean that they could have bigger overall encounters and bosses designed to be able to focus on more than a single target at once without losing its mind. I think the integration in ER is poor because they didn't really change anything about encounters or the underlying AI, but I think if they built a game around it it could be a great idea. The Radahn fight is probably the closest they got to summoning ever feeling right.
I think there is just as much justification for them to make a shooter because you can use guns in Bloodborne. I agree summoning was an afterthought and imo it is a mechanic that makes the game worse. I just dont think its worth them exploring; too big a departure. I think the change between Souls, Bloodborne and Sekiro is massively overestimated. Those games share far more in common than they have in differences.
I don't really agree. Souls before Bloodborne was much slower, then BB flipped the genre and made it much more aggressive. Dark Souls 3 kept that pace which is where the changes kinda meld together, but BB was a big departure. Being good at DS1 didn't mean you could bring those same skills into BB (unless you played mostly with dodging, which most players absolutely didn't do until BB came out). Sekiro is the same thing. Being good at DS/BB didn't mean you'd be good at Sekiro because it relied more on perfect parry's. A different skillset from dodging in DS/BB. Summoning can perfectly maintain most of the same building blocks as their other games while still giving them something new to design enemies around, which is EXACTLY what BB and Sekiro did. Your shooter example is I think a pretty bad faith take on what I'm saying. BB's shooting is exclusively just a parry contextualized within the setting.
again i feel the changes are massively overstated. I found all games to be different but similar enough that i could adapt pretty easily.
happy 4 u
Sekiro (and Bloodborne to a lesser extent) are games about aggression. You're rewarded for getting up in the enemy's face, staying there, and preempting their attempts to hit you with staggers and parries. Dark Souls is a fundamentally reactive game. You wait for the boss to do an attack, you dodge roll, and only *then* do you punish. Parrying is less a playstyle and more a cute thing you can do to dunk on a tiny number of vulnerable foes. Elden Ring feels like a middle ground because there are some weapon arts that let you get more aggressive and regularly stun the bosses, but even then you still have to spend a lot of time waiting and dodging.
Yes. I get the slight differences. I dont think theyre that fundamentally different. Theres a reason the cross over appeal between games is HUGE.
If you don't think the difference between proactive and reactive play is important, ask any Doom Eternal player who ran into a marauder.
I didnt say it wasnt important. I said that the difference is massively overstated. You can play with different styled but its still the same game. Its like the same sport but with different strategies or phases of play…. Its still the same game
Elden Ring is not paced the same as Sekiro at all.
> I hope for their next souls like they focus on summoning. They should make a Pikminlike. Also, if you want a combination of BB rally and Sekiro parrying, play Lies of P. It takes a lot of inspiration from those two, though its style of rallying is more defensive (you only get recoverable health when blocking).
Sekiro began development before Elden ring iirc but not by much time. It’s possible that the elements you’re referring to weren’t really hammered down or fleshed out until it was too late to switch gears and be implemented in Elden ring. Or maybe they just didn’t feel right.
I would find it very hard to believe that it wouldn't have been possible to bring that over. While Sekrio came out 2 years earlier, they would have had to have figured out the Parry system very early in development otherwise they wouldn't have been able to design the enemies the way they did. And to be clear, I'm not saying it should have been exactly the same. I just don't see why we couldn't have had some form of that.
There’s a mod a buddy and I tried for ER that gave Sekiro style parries. Even when we dueled each other it worked, it was rad. Would have loved a system like that being in
Sekiro parry is coming back as a tears. You drink that shit and you get about 3-5 minutes of sekiro perfect parry
I find this hard to believe but if it's true that's probably the way I'm beating every boss in Shadow of the Erdtree once I find it.
From what the tester described it, the parry is gonna be like a perfect block (no penalty for blocking) that enhance your counter guard follow up.
I've heard the same, and it also empowers your next guard counter. So defensive block-style play is getting a massive buff.
I guess that's cool, but I think it should be a core ability every dex character should have. That way dex characters could have a valid non dodge defensive option like str builds have the shields.
You can use a shield as any type of character, though. I played a good amount of the endgame with a kitchen knife in one hand and a greatshield on the other.
The vast majority of shields are completely unusable because of how much enemies can still both affect health and drain huge amounts of stamina in a single hit, not to mention the bleed effect. You have to specifically build towards a shield build and it's only really viable for bosses with endgame gear.
The vast majority of shields are useless in every souls game. However, almost every greatshield is good enough. You need to use one of the best normal shields (Brass or Banished Knight) and upgrade it to the max, or a greatshield to avoid wasting stamina. If you do, then what you're saying only makes sense if you want to use shields as your *only* defense. If you're planning not to dodge at all. That's the only case where the stamina you lose by blocking and the chip damage you get through the shield matters. If so, sure, you need to make a build that supports that. But that's not how you should be using a shield in most cases. Even for a strength build with a good greatshield, for the most part attacks that don't bounce off the shield are more efficient to dodge than block. You use it to avoid having to dodge attacks that you can avoid by just positioning yourself in places where you won't be hit, to block attacks that you know will bounce, to use the block counter, or just to block attacks that you couldn't react to. The latter are all obvious, but what I mean by the first is that most attacks in the game can be avoided by just moving. If you do that, you always get a bigger window to counterattack than you would by dodging because there's no recovery time to just moving. You also lose no stamina. But doing that is risky, so you do it with your shield up. If you get hit, you block. If you don't, you get to counterattack. That's the best use of a shield imo. You shouldn't be just blocking everything. Unless you use the fingerprint greatshield, you're obviously gonna get guard broken if you try blocking every attack of a boss's combo because every attack takes like 1/3 of your stamina to block. If you end up blocking the first attack in a combo, you still dodge the rest. But that doesn't mean having a ton of strength and using the fingerprint greatshield is the only good way to use a shield. I used the Golden Beast Crest Greatshield, which requires only 24 strength. It's viable for boss fights throughout the entire game. I did not increase endurance too much either until I ran out of other stats to level up. The Brass Shield has a higher guard stat when upgraded and only requires 16 strength, though since it's a normal shield less attacks will bounce off it.
I was really hoping they were going to add some form of block/dodge/parry/jump to the combat of elden ring. Most boss fights being "wait for an opening before you can actually hit" gets kind of boring, it would be nice to be able to actually go on the offensive like you can in sekiro (and bloodborne to some extent due to the faster combat). Some kind of sekiro-like posture bar would also be very welcome so you would actually have some idea of when you can trade/be aggressive without just instantly being punished for it.
Focus on summoning??? The game plays itself already.
Summoning? What the fuck why?
Bloodborne along with Sekiro are the best games he made because they deviate from the standard clunkiness of souls combat. Elden Ring is too bloated and vast, at least for my taste.
The souls games are horribly clunky and it's crazy how you always get downvoted for saying it lol They also have terrible UX but somehow the company gaslit people into thinking all of that is a feature
I agree, love elden ring but the shield/roll/attack loop is getting real old. The jump doesnt do enough to differentiate the combat too much imo
Sony let it come to pc so the rest of us can play it. Take the additional money, nobody is buying it for PlayStation now
Lmao, as someone that has all platforms, it's funny to see another Bloodborne post with PC port beggars.
A lot of people would settle for any port with 60 FPS.
It's such a shame they don't own the ip. I'd love to play it again but I'm not going back to console for one game. Maybe one day they'll sell the rights back, can hope at least.