Bloodborne
continuing my agonizing descent into FromSoftware games
Y'all are just relishing in my torment at this point, I swear.
But hey, so am I.
Working backwards from Elden Ring, I'm making my way through the souls universe of FromSoftware games. Y'all saw me nearly go into cardiac arrest from trying to master Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, and last week, I finally completed Bloodborne (no DLC.)
And while I didn't destroy the controller from the PS4 I borrowed from my brother solely for the sake of playing this game, finally, I can say Bloodborne is still VERY stressful. In some ways, more so than Sekiro and Elden Ring, but it does also feel more forgiving at times.
And before diving into the nuances of my playthrough of Bloodborne, I'd say my gut reaction is it as a whole is that it's probably my least favorite of the 3 FromSoftware games I've played so far -- which feels taboo, based on reviews. But Bloodborne to me was simultaneously easier than Sekiro or Elden Ring (meaning there was less of a rewarding feeling when defeating a challenging boss) but it also had shortcomings that I think were erroneous rather than intentional. A learning curve and a strict set of gameplay rules can help a player develop a skillset and hone in on timing and patience, yes, but to me, Bloodborne had too many problems with design and functionaility to be considered quite as immaculate as the games that came after it.
I STILL REALLY LIKED IT, TO BE CLEAR.
Firstly, lemme gush about the aesthetic. Because while Elden Ring is a gorgeous work of art -- as you ride your steed through high fantasy tapestries -- and Sekiro is one giant send-up to feudal Japan in the most elegant way imaginable...Bloodborne is sheer Goyan brutality. You awaken on a cold evening in London, the city coated in fire and darkness, to a slew of hideous beasts lurking in the corner and angry townsfolk brandishing torches and pitchforks. The industrial age is in full swing as London begins to adapt to the coming era of machinery, yet seems plagued by something eternal; eldritch, even.
Bloodborne is meant to feel a bit Lovecraftian, a bit gothic horror, and a bit Hammer Films. The classic architecture of London being consumed by an onslaught of otherworldly beasts that are somehow familiar yet unrecognizable due to a seismic shift in their biology giving them the wrong sized heads or too many eyes or accentuated limbs. It's as if reality itself is being warped by a dark magic that propels the town's underbelly further into chaos known as the Hunt. The townsfolk are seemingly defensive at first, preparing to 'hunt' these beasts and protect themselves at all costs, but as the story progresses, the more it becomes apparent that these people were infected by the dark blood rituals to begin with and are quickly detioriating into something arcane and primal.
Bloodborne is frightening and grotesque, yet it's also a marvel to behold. Not unlike that first landscape in Elden Ring or the first bridge in Sekiro, the opening of the first gate in Bloodborne is a genuine "fuck me sideways" moment as you gaze at the coming full moon, bathing a derelict metropolis in crimson and violet hues that serve to highlight the blood that splatters across every wall. Evil science and witchcraft from another time punctuate most of the inner sanctums you explore as the mystery as to what this nightmare is fueled by only compounds. A cult of churchgoers seemingly trying to pry open portals to Hell, a pervasive disease turning humans into lycanthropes and bulbous golems, and even a subspecies of alienlike creatures that are here to...well, it's unclear, but they're DEFINITELY going to suck your brains dry, just for fun.
Combat in Bloodborne was actually wildly different from what I had come to expect.
Elden Ring established a pantheon of spells, incantations, ashes, summons, strong attacks, weak attacks, dodges, parries, and so on. To the point that it was overwhelming but also very useful to have an expansive arsenal of options. Sekiro, on the flipside, was very straightforward in that you had ONE sword with a limited set of moves (that could be expanded upon but never to a point where they could be exploited.) Sekiro demanded that you learn how to slice, how to thrust, and how to parry. That was it. The rest of the game was up to you and your ability to study timing, movement, and tactile precision.
Bloodborne, however, is almost a hack-and-slash game. It rivals Devil May Cry at times, wherein many battles will not call for a specific angle of attack, understanding of timing, dodging, or altering your build to boost defenses. Often times, the best approach in Bloodborne is to make sure you have the strongest weapon possible, and then just smash both attack buttons like your life depended on it.
Which isn't my favorite approach to a game -- especially one as revered as a FromSoftware game. I had gone into Bloodborne expecting battles to be long, drawn out contests of wit and timing, only to find that most enemies in the game were never alone. You'd easily get swarmed by a cadre of head-smashing insects or fanged crows if you wasted too much time trying to be clever. So the game accidentally forces you to pick weapons that have AOE attacks (I chose the threaded cane as my first, since it had an alternate attack that turned the cane into a long-range metallic whip. Similarly, I also chose the blunderbuss as my sidearm since it would have the widest spreadshot and likely knock back several opponents at once.)
And this is all fine and well in a vacuum, but what irked me at about the halfway point was that this approach robbed me of a lot of satisfaction I usually get in a souls game. In Elden Ring, you either stand off with a single enemy and [in my case] have to dodge and create enough space to cast devastating spells, or you find a good place to snipe a group of enemies with one huge blast of fire or an asteroid...And if that doesn't kill them all, you have plenty of extra space to draw them out and kill them one by one through the woods or toss them off cliffs. In Sekiro, most battles are already designed as one-on-one duels, as shinobi code might dictate, but even when presented with a group of enemies, the game is VERY clear about using shadow tactics to draw each opponent out one by one and assassinate them in silence.
Bloodborne really does not allow for either approach. The map is relatively straightforward and consequently every area is linear and rather small. Every single enemy sees and hears you the same way as the others and it takes very little for you to be detected and aggro every monster on the map. There's no sneak ability and the best option for distraction are some scent pellets that only work on specific monsters. Most of the game operates in alleys between buildings or hallways between chambers, wherein you're easily flanked on either side. There's no easy way to pick enemies off one by one and the weapons at your disposal can't really decimate a large group with just a few swings. So you're forced to either run VERY far and split the group up, or you simply have to hack away and hope for the best (guess which one I opted for?)
It's bad teaching, as far as a game is concerned. I felt like Bloodborne was forcing me into bad habits simply because of the weapons I chose. Maybe the saw cleaver and repeater pistol would've worked better in a lot of these areas...Unfortunately, I never really found out because the game also makes it difficult to expand your weapon inventory in any meaningful way. Oh, most weapons are available at the store, yes (weird that virtually none are findable in-game, by the way) but they're all base level. Meaning if you're more than 25% into the game, they're absolutely useless against the enemies you're facing. And yes, you CAN technically upgrade them like you did your original weapons, BUT you need special bloodstones for each level of upgrade, and those bloodstones become increasingly difficult to find throughout the game. So much so that I foolishly wasted my +10 upgrade on my threaded cane -- a weapon I ultimately had to abandon for the last 2 or 3 boss battles because they were all effectively immune to it. So I switched to my rifle-spear which I could never upgrade past +8 because of how hard it was to find the necessary stones again.
All this to say, Bloodborne's design, while interesting and unique, can diminish its own value on first playthrough. Yes, going forward, I'll have a better idea of how to build my arsenal and which weapons are better suited for the upgrades...BUT WHY DO I NEED TO HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY FINISH THE GAME ONCE TO FINALLY UNDERSTAND ALL THIS?
Again, Sekiro and Elden Ring make sure that you understand the way weapons, bonuses, materials, etc. work throughout the game and the developers made sure to include enough loot throughout gameplay that you always have a chance of grabbing the items you need most in that moment. Bloodborne almost explicitly avoids this method of delivery, despite having a similar inventory and upgrade system. It became maddening, because it meant my only option sometimes was to fast-travel (well, 'fast' is relative because you always have to teleport to a central hub first before you teleport to another location) to an early level and re-kill every enemy in that area -- for virtually no experience -- just in the hopes of finding that same item again.
Now, that sounds like a lot of bitching, especially in comparison to my glowing reviews for both Sekiro and Elden Ring. So to be clear, I still loved Bloodborne. I was intoxicated by its aesthetic and after the first week, I started daydreaming of how to approach certain fights and where to explore next. So it still had that same stranglehold on my conscious that the other 2 games did.
But it was SO close to being the greatest experience ever. It could've absolutely knocked me off my feet and been the first game ever that I considered immediately replaying as soon as I finished it.
But instead, I finished my playthrough of Bloodborne feeling excited, but a tad hollow. Unfulfilled due to a lack of clear understanding that I would argue wasn't totally my fault.
A victim of my own tardiness, but I was aware of several big battles, weapons, and locations in this game. And unfortunately some, including one very big exciting final boss battle, are not accessible unless you do some VERY specific side quests earlier in the game. Many of which I didn't even know existed despite my attempt to interact with EVERY character in the game. If I had made a point to read more about the specifics of the game early on or had followed along with video guides more closely, I may have caught some of these, but I was trying my best to experience Bloodborne on my own in the moment. Which unfortunately meant missing out on some of the game's most beloved content. And that, frankly, taints my experience of the game just a bit...Not to mention that everyone in the Bloodborne subreddit almost exclusively talks about the DLC content and how much better/harder it is than the original game. So that makes me feel like I'm not even playing the game properly, just by walking through the original release in full.
ALL THIS TO SAY,
Bloodborne is still something to cherish. It is still a brutal, hideous, and excitingly fun time in a realm never really put to screen before in a video game -- certainly not to that extent and with such a flourish before. The gameplay itself was still very engaging and the monsters were undoubtedly frightening. I did still find myself leaping out of my seat repeatedly and cheering when I finally killed a boss, and I did feel that sense of invincibility whenever I leveled up -- which is all you can ask from these games.
But still, I can't help but gush over what came after. In retrospect now, Bloodborne feels like a stepping stone. It feels like the logical foundation to what would eventually become Sekiro's much more technical approach to battle and Elden Ring's mastering of large inventories and dynamic weaponry.
So maybe I shouldn't be comparing Bloodborne to the others. Maybe I should be thanking it for making the mistakes first so Sekiro and Elden Ring didn't have to.