Bloodborne's first expansion, hits Nov. 24

I'll probably get it, though I've been somewhat disappointed with Bloodborne generally...

haha, I mean you could say that about any game series. They generally upgrade graphics, have different story and setting, keep basic gameplay but mix around weapons and mechanics. That goes for almost every sequel that has ever been made.

One of the greatest things about these games is what they stand for, and what they have accomplished. They are basically Japanese-made Western RPGs that are a far, far departure from the average cinematic experience QTE game, F2P or game with the common mantra of "MORE accessible" behind it through the entire development cycle. It thrives off of being the apparent opposite of what a lot of core gamers don't like about current gaming trends, but they also manage to be modern and convenient endeavors while still retaining difficulty.

One example: auto saving. It's a modern convenience, but it also for the most part means your game is very low risk. You don't have to ever worry about consequences when you always have a save ~1 minute behind when you walked into an area. Say you're playing an Elder Scrolls game, and you're not a thief build at all, but you want to be an ass and steal something. You fail to steal from the guy for the first attempt, but you can just sink a little more time into trying again and re-loading your save repeatedly until you actually take it and get away. The same applies for anything, anywhere you would be trying to do something you probably shouldn't be.

Now, Souls games. You get your auto-save, but it's not so much there as your safety net so you can be a moron. No, instead it's the opposite--the very enforcer of responsibility. Everything you do saves, and you can't go back and reload it, it's already done. So you thought you would be a hard ass and kill the NPCs in town, well...now you can't buy anything, and on top of that, the game's multiplayer system will likely mark you to be hunted by other players for your misdeeds. This may sound like death is more punishing than usual, but actually it's not at all - you normally won't lose anything. You keep the items you picked up and you have a fair shot at getting back the money/EXP you picked up. The best thing about death, though, is that you should have learned something - and that's perhaps the best thing about these games. You have to learn them. There's no way around it.

You can be one of these guys that reads up on gamefaqs/watches a tutorial for what to do before you even play the game/get to that area, but studying and knowing how other people beat things in the game won't be enough. You still have to actually execute the gameplay, which even when you do have x/y secret boss weakness, isn't usually a cake walk. I think it's also great how wikis generally list out a bunch of different discovered methods against bosses, further showing how there's probably no one way to do something. You can beat the thing how you want to if you keep at it, learn what the boss does, where you might can parry, etc.

There's also the feeling of discovery in these games...man, the first time I found Ash Lake...but yeah, the way the game doesn't hand you the story at all and leaves so many things up for fan interpretation is great. Rather than watching a bunch of cutscenes with linear, heavy-handed sociopolitical commentary or whatever else, Souls games present their stories and background in a subtle and eventual manner, the player coming to their own conclusions from reading about items, looking at his surroundings and the enemies he fights. Things being so open-ended like this allows the player to more accurately roleplay their character as well.

That's just a few things, without going into the gameplay itself. One of the biggest things is just how they're so conceptually different than the norm, but pull it off so well with the mix of Western/Eastern that they can be successful. Any other hard game would just be a hard game largely ignroed by the media.

I don't mean Western/Eastern in visual design, anime/not anime or something silly like that. I'm talking about how the game plays, basically an action D&D game. Created characters, player-chosen stats instead of set or random stat increases, real time battle system, etc. There is indeed more or less the dark fantasy/macabre realism of the game, too, which stands out.

I've never used the term JRPG myself. An RPG is an RPG. There are usually certain design choices tied to the respective regions, though. It's because of games like this that the lines are blurring, like you said. It's great that they're coming together.

You could think of it as an arcade game with unlimited lives, I suppose...but there are still consequences for your actions enough so that you will find yourself cautiously walking through the game. If someone were to play it like an arcade game with a lives cheat (i.e. run through it and mash buttons), they would no doubt kill themselves somewhere in the thousands. You have to manage your souls/blood. You have to learn what you're doing. If a death did cause loss of progress in the current system, then that would really make it pretty rough though...

Boss fights in Bloodborne all felt mostly the same probably because what they did was focus on only one combat style. You have to in-close melee everything, so of course you'll be just under/behind the boss the majority of the time to do damage. Their decision was to flesh out and expound upon the melee combat of the game, speeding up the mobility and refining what was already there, adding moves and options to it, but taking away the shield to keep the pace faster. What you're describing is a Souls game thing, where you can do your main damage with projectiles or magic. Bloodborne is a different beast, a game centered around fast echanges and dodging.

Even so, there are just as many stay under/behind bosses as there are ones where you have to play differently. Think about how different these are, for instance: Nikolash, Rom, Gascoigne, The One Reborn, Celestial Emissary (the weird blue alien boss), Witch of Hemwick, Shadows of Yharnam.

All of those have their own "thing" to them, and I know you definitely weren't on/under them the whole time.

As far as the story, yeah, there again that doesn't bother me at all. It's gotta be understandable how some might enjoy there not being narrated cutscenes between everything, huge background info databases and all that. These games, they show you something profoundly weird and you ask "What the heck is going on here...?!", which to me and people that think alike, make it much more interesting than a couple of hours of dialogue could. This also ties into how Bloodborne goes against the norm. I mean, it's nice to just play a game.

Speaking of MG, it has basically the same autosave approach as Bloodborne, I've been noticing. You can restart the mission, but that can put you waaaay back.

You can run...if you know where to run. The only time I did that without knowing where I was going was once in the forbidden woods. Terrible idea. I ended up getting sandwiched between the two boars in the swamp, ugh.

However, like in Central Yharnam, you can really just run straight past everybody with little consequence. Would you have any idea or inclination to do that the first time playing the game? Probably not, unless you were just crazy.

Yharnam Queen? I don't even remember who that is right now lol. But yeah, I mean...the game is all about the up close fighting. That's just how it is, and it's what a lot of people wanted/think is great. I used magic and bows more before, personally.

Oh, that makes sense then, I only did maybe a third of the chalice dungeon stuff. I was playing by myself and got tired of seeing ritual blood and tomb mold over and over.

Good news about the frequency of games is that they're taking a break after Dark Souls 3, likely in part for this very reason. DS3 will mark the end of an era in the souls games, as stated by the director, but will not be -the- end. Sounded fair to me.

I'm used to fighters, so versions and more stuff coming out doesn't get on my nerves much lol. These games all managed to be fresh and different enough to me, though, and not rife with what I understand the issues that Assassin's Creed games have. I've never played one, they don't appeal to me as much. That Ubisoft battlefield game with the knights/vikings/samurai looks pretty neat though.