Is bloodborne the most wide appealing "souls" game from FromSoft?

No, it's the best but more people seem to talk about Souls/Rings. Probably because you can overlevel stuff and there's more variety for playstyles.

The meme's "the Dark Souls of x", not "the Bloodborne of."

Elden ring hasn't faired too well with critical takes but is beloved generally

Elden Ring has an aggregate of above 95. Just throwing that out there real quick.

Anyway no I wouldn't say so, Bloodborne is still demanding a largely specific playstyle compared to the variety of Souls or Elden.

Bloodborne has the most fanatic fans, but it's still a niche game, whereas Elden Ring has been the biggest game released this year. BB is not even in the same ballpark. Bloodborne is still a fucking awesome game, though.

I think Bloodborne's biggest problem is that, while it might be the most approachable from gameplay moment-to-moment (the limitation of almost all weapons being one-handed, and dodging being the primary mode of defense with the gun as a secondary weapon helps narrow focus), it's also the least respectful of player's time. There's no way to teleport between lanterns/bonfires without returning to the Dream (which adds a minimum of two load screens), the pathing through the game is also pretty tricky, requiring a lot of backtracking and bouncing around, and, of course, there's grinding to harvest blood vials which is nothing more than a slog.

I think if we're talking accessibility, Elden Ring does a ton for the player in the meta of the game. So while you get plentiful options, and perhaps too many, it's rare that a specific build is needed to continue the main story (something that drove me absolutely NUTS in Dark Souls 3), but even if you run up against a boss your current build can't fight, they make respeccing accessible and fairly easy to engage with. I rarely went out of my way to hunt the larvae and still found myself able to just do whatever I wanted with my character's build.

Edit: And to be clear: Bloodborne's my favorite entry in the whole franchise because of its emphasis on cosmic horror, and the focus of its gameplay. But it is not the most wide-appeal by any means.

Elden ring hasn't faired too well with critical takes but is beloved generally.

That's certainly an interesting take, Elden Ring being open-world instantly makes the game more appealing to a wider audience.

Throughout the interview, Miyazaki emphasised the new sense of freedom he created when making the latest From Software offering. That's not just by letting them choose their path through the new world, but in how they play the game.

"We want players to feel the importance of the level of freedom that we’re focusing on this time. We want them to enjoy the game in their own way and feel liberated in this new open world that they can explore at their own pace."

This is why open-world games are so popular.

I would say it's the second least approachable Souls game right after Serkiro due to it's very limited build options (comparatively to all other Souls entries) and it's reliance on aggressive in your face combat that does not work for everyone. It certainly has the most unique aesthetic of all these games with it's Cthulhu-Victorian vibes that we simply don't see very often. Everything else in the From catalogue is either dark fantasy or Sekiro's somewhat unique take on the feudal-Japan look which we have also seen many times over in various forms.

Elden Ring is probably their most approachable game to date as it presents the player with so many options and so many "crutches" to lean on it is incredibly hard to back yourself into a corner.

unlike the rest Bloodborne oozes atmosphere amd creativity where everything seems new and fresh for an FS game which makes it 10x more fun to explore and learn about. the weapons can transform in a cool looking way which adds to the game creativity and they still look cool to me.

the guns were also a great addition and they fit so well in the game's world, parrying with them is way more satisfying than a shield in my opinion.

I was really hoping to see FS take on different new settings and themes like the wild west for example but Elden Rings success will mean more Elden Ring until it's no longer a success.

Elden ring hasn't faired too well with critical takes

Elden Ring has a score of 94% for the PC version on Elden Ring and 96% for the Xbox/Playstation versions. How has it not "fared well?"

Anyway, it's definitely not Bloodborne. Bloodborne narrows its focus on aggression and speed - it is specifically designed such that you need to get up close and personal. It has a shield, but it's largely a joke - you play Bloodborne as it's meant to be played, with comparably less variation in gameplay style than any other From Software game since Demon's Souls. Sekiro goes even further down this path.

I'm not sure which game I'd hand the "most approachable Souls game" title to. Elden Ring has, by far, the most options for cheesing the fuck out of the entire game - magic and dexterity are less busted than at launch but they're still absurdly powerful and the creatures you can summon to help you during boss fights and in certain areas of the overworld make that entire game much, much easier. But also, if you don't have much interest in those things and instead go for something else, that game gets much, much harder. Not Sekiro hard, but pretty fucking hard.

Meanwhile, Dark Souls and everything about it is so well documented and so influential that it's probably not all that hard for someone who has played games influenced by it but not the game itself to go back and play it and have a breezy time.

I suppose I'd lean towards giving that nod to Elden Ring just for the sheer variety of viable builds, some of which make the game way easier than others.

See now I've always considered Sekiro an easier game because of its singular focus and overpowered toolkit so if just considering ease of approach I think pretty high on that list.

But definitely not as wide appealing.

Bloodborne being limited to Playstation probably limits its appeal somewhat. Also, it has a pretty aggressively difficult opening compared to the other games, and the gothic aesthetic is probably a bit of an acquired taste. Probably the least wide appealing Soulsborne game tbh (I really don't think Sekiro qualifies). Elden Ring's massive sales and universally positive critical reception probably means it's the right answer here.

As others have mentioned its reach is limited and it starts off being pretty unforgiving so I would also say its not as approachable. However, I do wonder how many folks will be giving it a shot, or another shot, after playing Elden Ring. And it still seems like a matter of when, not if, that we get some sort of remake or remaster. Its an extremely prime time for Bloodborne to blow up again.

Oh HELL no. Its Elden Ring. Easy.

I know several people who were too intimidated by, or just never interested in, Souls games who have put hundreds of hours in Elden Ring.

Bloodborne was probably the previous winner (and is an exquisite game), but Elden Ring blows it out of the water in terms of mass appeal.

I'm going with maybe. It seems to me that people click with Souls games at different junctures. Mass appeal's a difficult measure to quantify because it seems more discourse happens with each passing release. It's not an underground thing any more. Everyone talks about Souls.

I think mechanically, Bloodborne is the most accessible. There are fewer choices to make and I feel the quicker combat goes a long way to getting people onboard. Elden Ring lets the player dictate the pace but there's always the fear of 'Am I doing the right thing?'

Elden Ring has the broadest appeal, and it's really not even close. Bloodborne perhaps has the most fanatical die-hard fans, but Elden Ring hit with a far larger number of people.

My horse in this race is still Dark Souls 1 even with The Bed of Chaos being a thing.

But my preferences aside, it's Elden. Maybe if Bloodborne had a PC version...

That sure is a weird take. I can totally understand preferring the gothic setting, but Bloodborne is by far the most samey FromSoftware game from start to finish. All their games are overflowing with atmosphere and creativity, but there's more variety in the Souls games. The biggest problem Bloodborne had with its exploration was that there was never anything worth picking up.

The answer is so obviously Elden Ring. That game reached so many people who would normally *never touch* a From game. It is absolutely the most mainstream one of those.

I'm interested in these takes: I always found the choice in Dark Souls to be overwhelming. If I'm having trouble with a boss or an area, it COULD be my skill-level, but it also COULD be that the boss is geared more toward a dex build, or certain weapons deal higher damage or break through resistance (think about the mines in Demon's Souls where enemies take almost no damage from anything but piercing weapons), there are 100 reasons why I might be struggling with a boss and 1000 options for how to deal with it.

In Sekiro or Bloodborne, there are only so many different things to try. Obviously there's a fairly wide gulf between the ax and the cane in terms of speed, but ultimately: that's more about personal preference and style. They require a higher skill ceiling, which is why I don't think they're the MOST approachable (Sekiro's combat still spins me and I've barely scratched the surface of that game), but I don't think choice=approachability every time.

For instance: Even in Elden Ring, I tried to beat Malenia with my endgame STR/END build, and could barely get her halfway down her second form. Switching to a Dex-build, I was able to in fairly short order. But she's an optional boss, so my game's progress wasn't halted.

I get that argument that more options=more ways to play=more approachability, but I don't think that's a universal truth for games. Sometimes choice can be overwhelming, especially when certain enemies and bosses are meant to be tackled in a certain way (unlike an Assassin's Creed game or Deus Ex where the game encounters are all engineered to be beatable, no matter the player's build).

@undeadpool: I think in the very end you answer your own question when you say that "Sometimes choice can be overwhelming, especially when certain enemies and bosses are meant to be tackled in a certain way." Choice can be overwhelming for sure, but at the end of the day when you hit a brick wall and have determined that with your current abilities and loadout you just can't progress further there is always a plan B to try. When put up against a wall even the most hesitant player will typically try an alternate approach before putting the game down for good. When you reach a boss in Sekiro and your reflexes and hand eye coordination are just not enough then thats the end of the road. I know way more people that gave up in Sekiro because of their inability to play that game on it's terms than folks who were paralyzed by build choices in Elden Ring.

Sometimes I think people don't really understand how powerful the player character is in Sekiro compared to other Souls games. I feel like those tools can compensate for a wide range of player skill with practice.

If player choice was so overwhelming then open-world titles wouldn't be nowhere near as successful as they are, its no surprise Elden Ring as sold as well as it has.

Most open-world games don't come with the 'Am I levelling the right thing up?' anxieties.

i would say no . putting setting/theme aside tho i'd argue medieval is an easier sell to the masses than gothic/victorian cosmic horror. i would say the major thing holding back bloodborne from a more wide appeal is simply the combat of the game . the focus on getting in enemies faces might be great for some and the gaining health back for is is of course a great idea for a mechanic , but i'd be willing so say alot of ppl probably found that to lead to more frustrating deaths than the demon/dark souls play it safe strategy. the gun too with its timing n being able to stun too is a great mechanic conceptually , but again that requires specific timing that a person just might not have that then having an option to block is possibly a big loss. each of the games has dodging so thats not earning it any points. more often than not i've hear ppl complain about the choices of gear being lacking so that too could limit appeal for some. mechanics wise blood vials being farmable is a benefit i'd say vs being limited to a number of flask uses in dark souls , but demon souls had herbs before it.

personally pre-elden ring i would say the more widely appealing game was dark souls , the setting is an easy sell and there was alot more customization for playstyles and having the ability to play defensively if you don't have great timing with things for a parry oddly gives it its boost. the world is open enough that ppl who might be a bit more putoff by the sectioned nature of demon souls level/stages might be happier with.

all this said its my understanding that elden ring takes the setting openness and customizability to a greater level than previous games and seems to have been the point where a bunch of ppl seem to finally 'click' with those games moreso than i've heard their other games do so currently i think elden ring might have the widest appeal currently , plus as i said a simple medieval setting helps widen that appeal .

Elden Ring is higher rated and has done much much MUCH better in sales, so no.

I didn't do well with Bloodborne. To some extant I did the move-sets down and using the mostly underpowered gun for parrying. But I could not say I enjoyed it much. I think what mostly defeated me was the monochromatic world, and the same reflected in the very story and actions of the characters around you and which one engaged with. Kind of a dive into a bleak grey universe, though there was of course color of sorts. I gave up with whoever the Deacon lady was, and really, and I didn't regret it. Most of my knowledge of Bloodborne was later from watching Jan' let's play during the pandemic. And I would have to say the story intrigued me much more than playing the game, and I spent some time on you-tube for that reason. But over-all, Bloodborne was a depressing big blah for me in terms of actually having to play it.

Elden Ring on the other hand had both graphic color (rather like DS 2) and was such a grand open endeavor with wide spacious vistas. And what the player could be in it was way more open and nuanced than say some black attired rotty-looking individual with a chopper of sorts and a gun. So much more to do, and not in any way so one-dimensional appearance. I started out as a Warrior but re-started as a Prisoner, that I also wasn't above using a shield, wand or sword, various move-sets, armor and so on. Perhaps that made Elden Ring easier, but I found it hard enough. And that without respec-ing. The fact that if so desired, one could hike up their skirt and go explore some another front was stupendous. Yes, I guess the open world aspect was a good thing in this case, at least. And though the world and what was happening (hundreds of crucified and hanging bodies), so that you could almost smell the stench, it communicated this without leaning on a faded pallet.

The preference for me is obvious, without even sales or ranking

Bloodborne kicked ass, but it was PS4 only, and i dont know if i would have even played it if it hadn't been a pack in with the replacement system i bought once they became more available.

@humanity: I'm also arguing that Elden Ring is the most accessible, and to state it again because it wasn't in my 2nd post: it's mainly up to the cheap respecs. Because then you have bottomless things to try AND numerous ways to try them.

Frankly I think EVERY SINGLE action-RPG should have them, especially ones with a system like SoulsBorne games where every level up becomes more expensive and every stat point eventually becomes precious.

@undeadpool: Agreed. Being locked into a broken build halfway through the game because you didn’t get how the stats worked at the start sucks. Not everyone has the time and energy to just start a 15 hour game over again. Should be a standard quality of life feature.

It arguably can't be the most widely appealing when it's still locked to only being on a single line of consoles.

ESPECIALLY with games are arcane as SoulsBorne ones before Elden Ring, which is somewhere Bloodborne absolutely falls flat on its face: the fact that magic and beast builds aren't hardly viable until New Game + with ZERO indicator is bordering on the kind of thing that should be treated as a bug.

Then again, I'm the guy who thinks the Black Eagles should be locked out as a first playthrough choice in Fire Emblem: Three Houses, maybe I just think people need a little more guidance than they do.

This to me is an even weirder take when people describing or criticisng Bloodborne. When you include the DLC, it was easily the most vibrant and atmospheric in terms of aesthetic and art design out of the Soulsborne games that had come out at the time, especially when you compare to how bland and sterile a lot of Dark Souls 2's environments were. It was just going for a more specific gothic horror vibe, and still managed to do an insane amount with its more limited scope. Like yeah, medieval fantasy as a setting probably inspires more variety compared to Victorian gothic horror, especially with how Elden Ring is basically a greatest hits of everything that had come before, but Bloodborne felt like it was genuinely trying an atmosphere that hadn't been done before and really stood out compared to its predecessor, whereas ER is just recycling 12 years worth of games. Even stuff like Nekros and the underground cities are evoking the cosmic horror elements that were introduced in BB.

Also, from my experience, a lot of people at the time that didn't vibe with Darks Souls, for whatever reason, Bloodborne clicked for them much better, whether it be because of the setting or the fact that dodging had more invincibility frames to accommodate its more aggressive play style. People like Maximililan Dood really got into the series with Bloodborne. There was a lot of hype for it as a PS4 exclusive and it drew even more people into the Soulsborne fandom. It wasn't to the same extent as Elden Ring obviously (how could it when it was a PS4 exclusive) but it definitely felt when it came out that these types of games were becoming more and more mainstream.

Also, I don't really agree that more options/builds=more accessible. I think the more streamlined nature of Bloodborne made it more intuitive and straightforward for new players on how to approach bosses, whereas there's a real choice paralysis for some people when it comes to all the build options in DS 3/ER, especially when you take into consideration that some builds are completely ineffective against certain bosses, whereas pretty much most builds in BB can handle 99% of the bosses. The more aggressive playstyle can be unforgiving for those that were used to playing with a shield in DS, which isn't the case with a lot new players that were coming into the series with BB. Also, I found the first few hours of ER to be much more unforgiving since while it is open world, the NPC and game are instructing you to head straight to Stormveil, which means fighting the Tree Sentinel and Margit, which ARE MUCH MORE brutal than either Father Gascoigne or the Cleric Beast, especially if you haven't gone out of your way to level up by doing side content.

In fact, a lot of ER bosses feel way to overpowered with their large health pool and one shot kill BS, that going out of your way to grind dungeons in the open world feels like a necessity rather than something that makes the game "easy". Personally, I found the start of DS3 to be the easiest and most accessible out of all the games. The thing that's holding back Bloodborne is that it's a PS4 exclusive that's lacking some of the quality of life features that were introduced in DS 2/3. Farming blood vials was never an issue for me. Simply spending all the left over echoes I had from leveling on blood vials was enough to where I didn't have to grind at all afterwards. Demon's Souls has a lot of weird quirkiness that I find charming but not really that good of a choice as a gateway to the series. Dark Souls 1 is iconic but put on way to much of a pedestal and parts of that game are really cheap and unfinished. The second half is just frustrating to go through. Sekiro is probably the most inaccessible since it requires a lot twitch timing to get the parries right and is just the most brutal for newcomers overall.

Most Accessible: Dark Souls 3>Elden Ring

Somewhere in the middle: Bloodborne>Dark Souls 2

Least Accessible: Dark Souls>Demon Souls>Sekiro

Anyway I love how so many people here are going off about its "die hard fans". I remember all the terrible take threads people were making here when Bloodborne came out and now it's gone to be one of the most fondly remembered games in the series ;)

Put me in the camp that says Bloodborne’s limitations are what made it the first From Soft game I tried and only one is beaten prior to Elden Ring. At every turn you’re very aware of what the game is asking of you, and if you can’t hang it’s easy enough to just extremely exaggerate you’re health and strength until any encounter can be reasonably trivial as long as you have the most basic understanding of their pattern/layout.

It can’t be overstated how important that opportunity to get laughably overpowered is to that accessibility, though: those of you suggesting Sekiro are absolute maniacs.

From a pure “baby’s first Souls game” perspective though it’s clearly Elden Ring. While I definitely had some well documented moments of being so frustrated I nearly gave up, in hindsight beating that game was never in doubt, where even Bloodborne had me sometimes wondering if I had what it took. There are just certain weapons or spells in Elden Ring that are so damn friendly. Watching Patrick play the second half of the game, for example, he’s abusing this gravity globe something or other that has him beating almost every boss he meets first try and Cado is bewildered by it. Or even just the humble mimic tear, through which you can take advantage of multiple status effects with dexterous enough equipment hot swaps.

Personally get this but also don't. I first played souls like and did the dumb thing and tried for jack of all trades random. By the time your stuck and notice nope focus, you can restart. The beginning hour or two to get there is practice. Dark souls 1 took me 60 hours to complete, next time 20, then 15, etc. you get a lot better (and know where to go) and notice...eh maybe you just need strength if your just looking to end it quickly with a slow weapon, or dex or never touch anything else if you're like me, or magic it up IDK that's why we have several save slots. I think this part of souls is a feature, not a bug...they want you to replay. Hence the vs mode and all the costumes that make it like a fighter with different stats and attacks.

PS. I assumed BB was picked since Giantbomb overall really came into souls with that game and it even won a goty list point. Even Jeff liked it and almost finished it before he got bored...he usually gets bored of souls games instantly lol. Personally, i agree Elden is the most hey just mess around since it's so close to other games while keeping the souls feel, that said it also makes people wish it was just well easy lol. I came around on that, but boy do games feel mindless after a while if their not well balanced, and most today are too easy, and the hard mode just tedious hp increases. Kinda happy souls is ok with just having one difficulty.

@topcyclist: A bad build, or more commonly an inefficient build, rarely manifests in such a way that you can simply restart to fix. Most people don't want to restart a game for this anyway so it's really silly to suggest that's what one should do.

Respec is just good game design.

@topcyclist: Bad builds only become an issue when you're way more than 2 hours into the game. For most newcomers to Bloodborne I doubt they would have even beaten the first boss 2 hours into the game, much less created a very inefficient build. To their credit Souls games can generally be beaten with awful builds. In fact they can be beaten with anything if you're good enough - plenty of "fists only" runs through all these games to prove it. We are talking about the common player here though. Someone with an average skill level that is absolutely not going to replay Dark Souls 3-4 times in a row. I'm a big fan of these games and I rarely if ever go through them more than once simply because I rather move on to another experience. For people like me having the ability to respec is important because I can't beat Bloodborne using just my fists and when I play these games I welcome any advantage I can get.

Elden Ring lets you respec a bunch but you do have to make it some way through the game which I think is a fair trade, although just being able to respec at any time for free would be even better because why not?

Objectively, I think Elden Ring does. Elden Ring seems to allow plenty of access for people who don't play these types of games (while also allowing the complexity and builds souls players want).

nah it's elden ring. bloodborne is the most 'mythic' tho. treated like a splendid abominable unicorn. not to say ppl are wrong about that.

I dunno. I played Bloodborne for a few hours after hearing for years how great it was, and I just... couldn't do it. I might've had more patience if the load times were super quick and the save points were more generous, but as it is, it got old very fast having to fight the same easy enemies over and over to get to the one I was stuck on. Not for me. I respect it, though... no doubt it's a great game, and maybe I would appreciate it if I put more time into it.

Elden Ring was more accessible to me because of its open-world nature. I played it for 10 hours or so and beat a couple bosses at least. I might've kept at it if life hadn't intervened and stopped my momentum. Still, in general, I find that the difficulty in these games is more frustrating for me than in other also-difficult games like Hollow Knight or Metroid Dread, say. I keep hearing that the games are a lot easier if you know the tricks to cheese them properly, but that doesn't mean it's accessible, since the tricks you should do aren't exactly obvious.