I finally watched the "Bloodborne is Genius, and Here's Why" video

[hanselthecaretaker]

I know PhoenixMGS has been posting it as a reference [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3OuLU5XCw] for the last year or so.

Spoiler: Here were my comments in full

hanselthecaretaker
4 hours ago (edited)
Interesting video, but I somewhat disagree with the general premise of dodging automatically being objectively more fun. I really like Bloodborne, but it feels less tactical overall by relying on dodging around like a rabbit (Happy Easter) or gun parrying for defense, which is easier and less risky than Souls because you can attempt it outside of your opponents' range. Dodging and hacking/slashing especially just makes the combat feel like nearly every other action game (which is probably why Bloodborne instantly resonated with people that didn't "get" Souls) by removing the tension that guy felt against Allant around 16:25 and forcing you to rely on i-frames, which I personally consider somewhat of a bane of modern game design and one of the worst aspects of SoulsBorne combat. They are basically like a QTE without the actual prompt. Bloodborne remedies a lot of Souls' bloat and imbalance by a quality over quantity approach and buffered by practicality in upgrading and summoning, but it still carries over the biggest combat design flaws and limitations.

This is also why Kingdom Come: Deliverance's combat is a breath of fresh air, because every action feels tangible and logical vs gamey for the sake of looking cool if nothing else. I don't think Bloodborne "solved" any of Dark Souls' issues, because all it did was side step them literally. It took a series lacking technical depth (too often playing ring-around-the-rosie for backstabs for example) and doubled down on its shortcomings instead of actively attempting to correct them. It also is telling if it's true that Miyazaki thought it was a mistake giving players a shield right away; in other words, "why give them one at all" seems to be the take away. In that case, maybe he should have skipped right to Bloodborne? I think the over-reliance on dodging and i-frames trivializes what Souls could have or should have been about. Why should I be able to invincibly roll right through a physical attack just because QTer, I timed it right? If anything it should at least have a different damage model, but every attack you're in range of should always connect. I-frames throw out game logic for the sake of what, looking cool, or keeping combat design conveniently shallow?

But as it is stands with Souls, a general perception is that the player conditioning was done intentionally to make players aware of the "fool me once" mantra. You'll know to look behind you for that ambush enemy in the future if the game introduces them early, as you also perfectly understood in Bloodborne at 1:15:32 and onward. You'll know that picking up a shield first doesn't mean it should always be a first resort. The game throws these things at you to teach the importance of becoming aware of your surroundings and to never get too over-confident or careless. In that way it definitely succeeds, but again the actual combat could have been balanced better between offensive and defensive strategy to make each feel equally important in a typical encounter. There are far too many games that go all-in on offense but never consider defense, which makes them too predictable and boring. I don't consider a gun parry that involves both near-perfect timing and near vacancy of risk the best example of defensive strategy by any means either.

Having said that, perhaps third person has its limits as to how precise and situational the combat move set can be...

As an aside, while I enjoy Yahtzee's commentary I don't consider his opinions gospel by any stretch. Supporting arguments may be helpful to present, but in one case you use one of his at 25:00 to help contradict one of your own established originally at 6:07. It makes the final takeaway point you're trying to make unclear. Also, while it might have been for you and I and quite a few others, Demon's Souls wasn't everyone's first Souls game, especially considering it was a PS3 exclusive. So the "weird and new thing" comment would translate well for them. The reason the Souls games have gained such a following is because of the "weird and new" anyways. It also gives the player far more options and play styles than Bloodborne, which is why although many people "got" and enjoyed Bloodborne more than they did with Souls, many more Souls fans still consider Dark Souls a better Souls game, regardless of it having a subjectively labeled "boring" way to play. Shields can still be fun if done right.

In short I'd say Bloodborne is a better action game than Souls overall, and definitely more refined in key ways (I still like the estus system more than blood vials though; DS2 balanced it well imo), but it also limits itself sometimes too much in the process despite still retaining key mechanical flaws; a big one you also get into around 1:01:56 and also 1:07:33. I also still haven't gotten around to playing DS3 after all this time, which many Souls and Bloodborne fans say is the best balance between the two. I hope so.

ps, while I also think the chalice dungeons were the worst part of the game from a level design perspective, I think their main purpose was to provide an elaborate playground for farming and upgrading. In that respect they exceed anything offered in the Souls games. But again, that reveals another couple considerable design flaws; or at least how they're implemented imo.

pss, I've always been kind of curious about Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, but haven't actually gotten around to playing it yet either.

 

[sXeth]

I think iFrames are a necessary evil, as it were, since you can't get the full fluidity of movement to simulate movement in combat. It does get silly of course, when you can magically roll out of the physical dimension and through a solid object of course. I wouldn't quite put them at a QTE level, since its not just pushing dodge to evade in most cases, you need a distinct directional input to go with it, and not to be committed to your own attack already. Following that logic could make anything a QTE in games.

Hyper-agile combat is of course, not a realism approach by any means. Kingdom Come/For Honor, or even Skyrim are much more authentic to some analogue of actual combat by people wielding heavy weapons and armor. Dark Messiah of Might & Magic actually attempted a believable sense of agile combat, since it focused more on evading or downing your opponent with environmental assistance then actually being able to hold your own in melee.

Souls combat is somewhat of a broad spectrum, which can lend itself to facets not being properly nuanced. Ranged and Magic have always been the complete afterthoughts in them, but the somewhat plodding and limited nature of shield work or the big heavy weapons also speaks to the designers having a clearer concept for the rolly-stabby stuff.

 

[stroopwafel]

Without a doubt, Bloodborne is my most favorite game of all time. I played through it so many times in the 3 years since it's been released. Normally my enthusiasm for a game slowly wanes but with Bloodborne I think it's still just as good as upon release. Everything just works so well and complements eachother. From the combat to the atmosphere to the world building to the enemies. It's a product of unbelievable imagination.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Some of these bosses are garbage, honestly. I was fighting the one at the end of Yahar'gul and got his HP almost fully depleted and then he one-shot me when I had almost full health. This area is a chore. It's not even hard getting back down there. I just run past everything in typical Dark Souls fashion. But It's still so tedious. He's a mess of a boss with huge sweeping attacks, shitty gigantic acid pools and deformities that make it hard to tell what you're even supposed to dodge, if the attacks are even on camera, and the attacks are overpowered. I just died again and I don't even know why. Trash. One of the trashiest bosses I've fought in the Souls games. Yeah, I'm upset.

You rage quite at The One Reborn? Are you actually joking?

This isn't even a case of "git gud" because you don't need to be good to beat him.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So, I have some issues with this video myself, but if I were to be charitable I would point out that hbomberguy never actually says that you should not use a shield in Dark Souls. I generally play without a shield, and I will freely admit that it makes certain areas and enemies frustrating because they're designed around you being able to block them with a shield. What he said, and what I think is much more compelling, is that having access to shields train you to play the game in a way which never feels exciting and in which your mentality is always very cautious and defensive.

To compare using iFrames/parry frames/hyperarmour with QTEs strikes me as akin to comparing using a shield to block with playing an MMORGP. Technically, both QTEs and Souls combat use timing, but in practice they are completely different. QTEs are generally disliked because they are gameplay boiled down to the raw level of reaction time, it's how fast you can push a button when you see a prompt. In Souls, you don't just have to react quickly, you also have to react at the right time for the action you want to do and in accordance with the enemy attack, and that's something which reaction time won't help you with.

Likewise, if you block with a shield in Dark Souls, you can ignore timing to a degree, which is what attracts a lot of new players. However, you also have to be hyper-aware of your own stamina which introduces a kind of resource management element. Now, MMORPGs also use resource management. When you fight a battle you are watching your healthbar go down and when it gets too low maybe you use an ability or drink a potion to get it back up. That doesn't mean that blocking with a shield in Dark Souls is the same as playing an MMORPG.

I will say, and this is my personal opinion, if you go through Dark Souls only using a shield and with rolling more as a means of moving around than a defence (which is a way I remember playing), if you avoid timed defences because they seem more risky than just keeping a shield up, you are probably making the combat system less rewarding because you never feel like you have enough stamina. You are stuck in this mentality of constantly fighting resources and trying to conserve enough so that the next combo doesn't knock you open and kill you, and that's fine, having the ability to turtle up and know you can avoid a tricky attack no matter what happens is a good thing. But if you know when to two hand your weapon, roll through a whole combo and then still have most of your stamina left to really put the hurt on something, then doing so becomes this little cathartic reward. It really does change the whole pace and flow of combat because suddenly you're making choices whether to favour offence or defence, to play it safe or to test yourself a bit more for that reward, and can switch between them on the fly.

This is why I'd consider Nioh to have better combat even than the Souls games its ripping off, because it made this ability to switch between offensive and defensive play integral to the combat system itself in a way Souls never quite managed with its clunky user interface.

So yeah, I don't think the point is that shields are bad or that you should only play with timed defences. I think that sounds like the point at some points in the video because hbomberguy likes ridiculous hyperbole for comic effect, the point is that the game presents you with this toolbox of offensive and defensive tools, all but one of which requires you to invest time and effort into learning timing, so naturally rather than learning the timing and becoming comfortable with it so that it's their choice when they switch between different playstyles, players immediately gravitate towards the one means of avoiding this learning and just stick with it, inching slowly through the game watching their stamina bars carefully and being extremely defensive, which is bad, it's not fun and it never feels rewarding in the same way pulling off a difficult bit of timing does.

 

[Natemans]

Is it sad I never made it past the first stage in that game and have died many times?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

So, I have some issues with this video myself, but if I were to be charitable I would point out that hbomberguy never actually says that you should not use a shield in Dark Souls. I generally play without a shield, and I will freely admit that it makes certain areas and enemies frustrating because they're designed around you being able to block them with a shield. What he said, and what I think is much more compelling, is that having access to shields train you to play the game in a way which never feels exciting and in which your mentality is always very cautious and defensive.

To compare using iFrames/parry frames/hyperarmour with QTEs strikes me as akin to comparing using a shield to block with playing an MMORGP. Technically, both QTEs and Souls combat use timing, but in practice they are completely different. QTEs are generally disliked because they are gameplay boiled down to the raw level of reaction time, it's how fast you can push a button when you see a prompt. In Souls, you don't just have to react quickly, you also have to react at the right time for the action you want to do and in accordance with the enemy attack, and that's something which reaction time won't help you with.

Likewise, if you block with a shield in Dark Souls, you can ignore timing to a degree, which is what attracts a lot of new players. However, you also have to be hyper-aware of your own stamina which introduces a kind of resource management element. Now, MMORPGs also use resource management. When you fight a battle you are watching your healthbar go down and when it gets too low maybe you use an ability or drink a potion to get it back up. That doesn't mean that blocking with a shield in Dark Souls is the same as playing an MMORPG.

I will say, and this is my personal opinion, if you go through Dark Souls only using a shield and with rolling more as a means of moving around than a defence (which is a way I remember playing), if you avoid timed defences because they seem more risky than just keeping a shield up, you are probably making the combat system less rewarding because you never feel like you have enough stamina. You are stuck in this mentality of constantly fighting resources and trying to conserve enough so that the next combo doesn't knock you open and kill you, and that's fine, having the ability to turtle up and know you can avoid a tricky attack no matter what happens is a good thing. But if you know when to two hand your weapon, roll through a whole combo and then still have most of your stamina left to really put the hurt on something, then doing so becomes this little cathartic reward. It really does change the whole pace and flow of combat because suddenly you're making choices whether to favour offence or defence, to play it safe or to test yourself a bit more for that reward, and can switch between them on the fly.

This is why I'd consider Nioh to have better combat even than the Souls games its ripping off, because it made this ability to switch between offensive and defensive play integral to the combat system itself in a way Souls never quite managed with its clunky user interface.

So yeah, I don't think the point is that shields are bad or that you should only play with timed defences. I think that sounds like the point at some points in the video because hbomberguy likes ridiculous hyperbole for comic effect, the point is that the game presents you with this toolbox of offensive and defensive tools, all but one of which requires you to invest time and effort into learning timing, so naturally rather than learning the timing and becoming comfortable with it so that it's their choice when they switch between different playstyles, players immediately gravitate towards the one means of avoiding this learning and just stick with it, inching slowly through the game watching their stamina bars carefully and being extremely defensive, which is bad, it's not fun and it never feels rewarding in the same way pulling off a difficult bit of timing does.

I think timing iframes makes things more stressful since it?s less tangible of a mechanic. Fume Knight in DSII dlc pretty much requires it as does Sir Alonne. Bloodborne is not unique to this as much as hbomberguy seems to think. The thing is the strategy I used against Fume Knight pretty much also required shield use during his first phase unless you can predict his quick offhand sword swipe. It was one of the most technically challenging SoulsBorne fights for melee, and arguably moreso than even the later chalice dungeon bosses in Bloodborne if conditions were similar. Ebrietas and Pthumerian Descendant were the most challenging but the former seemed to require more luck while the latter mostly relied on being able to gun parry imo.

 

[Worgen]

Meh, if Bloodborne was that good it would come to pc.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I think timing iframes makes things more stressful since it?s less tangible of a mechanic.

True, but that's kind of the point I feel. You're trading "stress" for reward. The only way to learn iframe timings is to just do it and die a lot until your brain just kind of adapts. The problem is, new players will interpret dying a lot as "I'm doing something wrong, better change strategy" and since shields don't require the same timing players will naturally fall back on those just because the learning curve is gentler and doesn't require this period where you suck and die all the time.

And yes, as you've pointed out Bloodborne isn't the only game which requires you to master iframes, but in many ways that makes it even worse. New players will go through much of the game playing with this hyper-defensive resource conserving mentality they've been taught, and then the game throws enemies at them which rely on a skill they've probably never mastered because the game inadvertently taught them it was the "wrong" way to play. When they tried to learn it they died a lot, and so naturally they tried to avoid that. At that point, it probably just feels unfair.

Heck, in dark souls 2 iFrames are dependent on actually levelling certain stats, meaning unless the player makes a stat investment in levelling adaptability it's going to be far, far harder to get it right. As you've pointed out, late game and DLC bosses require the player to make full use of the defensive tools the game has given them, yet it's quite possible that the rest of the game only taught players to rely on one, the shield, because the shield doesn't require the same investment as learning how to dodge properly, let alone parrying.

Bloodborne is not unique to this as much as hbomberguy seems to think.

I don't think the point was that Bloodborne was unique in that it ultimately requires you to learn how to dodge and parry. His point was that it was unique in the way it introduced and taught these mechanics to the player. In many ways, bloodborne is an easier game because it's simpler than dark souls, but because it's simpler the player is forced to use every mechanic right from the beginning, and the difficulty simply increases as you go through the game. Sure, you die a lot early on, but because you're given no options the player never inadvertently picks up the idea that they're doing something wrong, the game doesn't kill them for messing up timings, hand them a shield and say "hey, use this and you won't have to learn those timings", it kills them and says "whoops, better try again until you get it right".

And this is where my disagreement with the video starts to come in, because I'm not sure that's a good thing. Ultimately, the Souls games are difficult and they require a large investment of time to learn how to play them. I think it's easy for someone who has gone through the process and already knows they want to invest that time, like hbomb, to see bloodborne's approach as "genius" because it avoids the trap of the shield becoming a crutch, but brand new players don't already know they're going to like Bloodborne when they start. They need a reason to keep dying, they need an investment to make them feel like that learning process is worth it. The player who is going through the game and just cowering behind a raised shield all the time probably isn't having the most fun they could have, but at least they're experiencing the game. They have a chance to build up that investment which makes them want to keep going, and that is something I think bloodborne is actually lacking. It teaches new players perfectly, but it doesn't give them a reason to want to learn.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Is it sad I never made it past the first stage in that game and have died many times?

No. Just be glad you don't have to play the whole thing.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I can get where the criticism is leveled at HBomberguy, as well as his oft criticised "In Defense of Dark Souls 2" video. But honestly, until I watched those videos I absolutely abhorred Souls games. I remember playing Dark Souls on PS3 and the reinforcement that the shield is the way, regardless of class. It made the game feel painfully dull and I never actually felt like I was improving.

Jump to 2018 and I'm blasted my way though Dark Souls II SOTFS as a spell sword. I've never touched a shield. I just enchant my sword, two hand it and dodge and weave until the enemy is open. Yeah, every now and then I get a bit too eager and go for that third heavy attack, followed by immediate regret, but I still feel like I'm having a genuinely good time.

Since Bloodborne became free on PSPlus, I tried to play it. But I just can't get past its glaring performance issues on the PS4. After playing DSII and III on PC at a stable 60 frames, Bloodborne on feels clunky as hell.

 

[Dalisclock]

Is it sad I never made it past the first stage in that game and have died many times?

No. Everyone dies a lot. When you get used to the game, you just die less(sometimes much less). If you didn't finish the first stage(Central Yarnhem, I assume), then maybe the game didn't grab you enough to continue.

It does get easier as you get more weapons and get stronger but if you aren't enjoying the experience I can't blame you for stopping.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I can get where the criticism is leveled at HBomberguy, as well as his oft criticised "In Defense of Dark Souls 2" video. But honestly, until I watched those videos I absolutely abhorred Souls games. I remember playing Dark Souls on PS3 and the reinforcement that the shield is the way, regardless of class. It made the game feel painfully dull and I never actually felt like I was improving.

Jump to 2018 and I'm blasted my way though Dark Souls II SOTFS as a spell sword. I've never touched a shield. I just enchant my sword, two hand it and dodge and weave until the enemy is open. Yeah, every now and then I get a bit too eager and go for that third heavy attack, followed by immediate regret, but I still feel like I'm having a genuinely good time.

Since Bloodborne became free on PSPlus, I tried to play it. But I just can't get past its glaring performance issues on the PS4. After playing DSII and III on PC at a stable 60 frames, Bloodborne on feels clunky as hell.

See, this sounds boring to me. I know that seems weird, but pretty much every game focuses on nothing but offense. Shield use is under-utilized in Souls, but at least it's one of the few games that even attempts it. Odd to put so much effort into items that are ultimately just regarded as a waste of time. Shouldn't have to be the case. It could add so much in the way of tactical push and pull gameplay.

And yeah, I even enjoyed DS1 on PC more than PS3, but I?ve played all the SoulsBorne games on PlayStation for consistency. I do plan on also getting DS3 compete on PC with a future Steam sale though for the enhanced playability and visuals.

 

[Dalisclock]

Meh, if Bloodborne was that good it would come to pc.

That's less an issue with quality and more an issue with Sony not wanting to let go of their exclusive. Hell, Demon's Souls is still restricted to the PS3 and that platform isn't even being produced anymore.

If nothing else, Sony should let someone port Demons Souls to PC since it's not gonna help them sell any PS3's at this point.

 

[Terminal Blue]

See, this sounds boring to me. I know that seems weird, but pretty much every game focuses on nothing but offense. Shield use is under-utilized in Souls, but at least it's one of the few games that even attempts it. Odd to put so much effort into items that are ultimately just regarded as a waste of time. Shouldn't have to be the case. It could add so much in the way of tactical push and pull gameplay.

I don't think that's true. Look at lets play videos or twitch streamers, even really really good ones, and you'll still find a respectable split between shield users and non shield users. Heck, based on my experience even players who started out not using a shield will pick one up towards the end of the game (even if it's just the grass crest shield) because they have the weight capacity to use whatever weapon they want with a shield. What you won't find very often is:

a) Characters who are built around using shields, such as greatshield users (although they show up in PVP sometimes, so they must exist)
b) Players who never two-hand or who spend most of the time hiding behind a shield.

And even then, I suspect this has more to do with the dynamics of streaming and the need for streams to be exciting than it does with actual player use patterns.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

See, this sounds boring to me. I know that seems weird, but pretty much every game focuses on nothing but offense. Shield use is under-utilized in Souls, but at least it's one of the few games that even attempts it. Odd to put so much effort into items that are ultimately just regarded as a waste of time. Shouldn't have to be the case. It could add so much in the way of tactical push and pull gameplay.

I don't think that's true. Look at lets play videos or twitch streamers, even really really good ones, and you'll still find a respectable split between shield users and non shield users. Heck, based on my experience even players who started out not using a shield will pick one up towards the end of the game (even if it's just the grass crest shield) because they have the weight capacity to use whatever weapon they want with a shield. What you won't find very often is:

a) Characters who are built around using shields, such as greatshield users (although they show up in PVP sometimes, so they must exist)
b) Players who never two-hand or who spend most of the time hiding behind a shield.

And even then, I suspect this has more to do with the dynamics of streaming and the need for streams to be exciting than it does with actual player use patterns.

I should clarify that I know a lot of people still use them, but it?s generally considered an inferior or unworthy playstyle. It says something about the design when high level play will disregard such a large aspect of the game. It?s also unfortunate when watching streams is considered a suitable window into what it?s like playing something. Watching someone play doesn?t accurately reflect what it?s like playing, even if it looks boring. Hell, pretty much anything can seem boring if you?re just watching. I could fall asleep watching MKXL on youtube, but of course playing it is a completely different story.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Interesting video, but I somewhat disagree with the general premise of dodging automatically being objectively more fun. I really like Bloodborne, but it feels less tactical overall by relying on dodging around like a rabbit (Happy Easter) or gun parrying for defense, which is easier and less risky than Souls because you can attempt it outside of your opponents' range. Dodging and hacking/slashing especially just makes the combat feel like nearly every other action game (which is probably why Bloodborne instantly resonated with people that didn't "get" Souls) by removing the tension that guy felt against Allant around 16:25 and forcing you to rely on i-frames, which I personally consider somewhat of a bane of modern game design and one of the worst aspects of SoulsBorne combat. They are basically like a QTE without the actual prompt. Bloodborne remedies a lot of Souls' bloat and imbalance by a quality over quantity approach and buffered by practicality in upgrading and summoning, but it still carries over the biggest combat design flaws and limitations.

It also gives the player far more options and play styles than Bloodborne, which is why although many people "got" and enjoyed Bloodborne more than they did with Souls, many more Souls fans still consider Dark Souls a better Souls game, regardless of it having a subjectively labeled "boring" way to play. Shields can still be fun if done right.

I do think most people do find faster paced gameplay more fun, not that that's better. The Matthewmatosis face-cam reactions do a really good job of demonstrating that as well. I also think that Souls other playstyles aren't as well executed as the standard dodging playstyle either making that style more "fun" as well. Playing a shield playstyle is just holding a button and being invulnerable to getting hit, dodging requires more from the player. Of course, the riposte mechanic is pretty half-assed as far as when you can actually use it as he showed in the video so there's no point in even getting good at it. And the range stuff is pretty weak whether magic or bows. Sure, dodging in a game or even real life is basically a QTE, lots of things are basically QTEs when you break them down; the riposte is a QTE as well and it's the most "fun" mechanic of the shield.

As it stands now, I think i-frames are a necessary evil in action combat systems. Games that have very low i-frames or none at all never "feel" right. I've been playing Monster Hunter World a lot and the game has very low i-frames on the standard dodge and so many times after I get hit, I'll say to myself "I wasn't there" or "that didn't hit me". I've never played a game where I ever thought the hitboxes were done great and unless you have pinpoint hitboxes along with properly tracking those hitboxes as the characters move, you need i-frames. So until games get really good hitboxes, i-frames are required and it'll probably stay that way because adding in i-frames is like 100x easier and less time consuming for developers than making perfect hitboxes.

Also, Monster Hunter does a lot of combat things Souls does but far better like you actually have to manage your stamina in MH. In a Souls game, you can just attack until you run out of stamina and dodge away in a split second after recovering a sliver of stamina. Whereas in MH, if your dodge needs a 5th of your stamina, you can't dodge until you get that much stamina. Each move in MH also requires more deliberation for every attack because you are committing to longer animations than you are in a Souls game. MH really punishes you for mashing buttons and makes the player press each attack in your combos at the very tail-end of each attack so you don't get stuck in animations. I've come across as pretty hard on the Souls games not because I hate them or "they suck" but because they really don't do that many things good when it comes to their gameplay mechanics and they could be so much better. Souls wants to be this slow and deliberate action game where stuff like positioning and stamina management is crucial but it really is just masquerading as that IMO. From Super Bunnyhop's video on For Honor, the game really seems to have a great skill-based sword and shield gameplay far above a Souls game so you can do defensive/shield gameplay better.

And yes, as you've pointed out Bloodborne isn't the only game which requires you to master iframes, but in many ways that makes it even worse. New players will go through much of the game playing with this hyper-defensive resource conserving mentality they've been taught, and then the game throws enemies at them which rely on a skill they've probably never mastered because the game inadvertently taught them it was the "wrong" way to play. When they tried to learn it they died a lot, and so naturally they tried to avoid that. At that point, it probably just feels unfair.

I don't think the point was that Bloodborne was unique in that it ultimately requires you to learn how to dodge and parry. His point was that it was unique in the way it introduced and taught these mechanics to the player. In many ways, bloodborne is an easier game because it's simpler than dark souls, but because it's simpler the player is forced to use every mechanic right from the beginning, and the difficulty simply increases as you go through the game. Sure, you die a lot early on, but because you're given no options the player never inadvertently picks up the idea that they're doing something wrong, the game doesn't kill them for messing up timings, hand them a shield and say "hey, use this and you won't have to learn those timings", it kills them and says "whoops, better try again until you get it right".

And this is where my disagreement with the video starts to come in, because I'm not sure that's a good thing. Ultimately, the Souls games are difficult and they require a large investment of time to learn how to play them. I think it's easy for someone who has gone through the process and already knows they want to invest that time, like hbomb, to see bloodborne's approach as "genius" because it avoids the trap of the shield becoming a crutch, but brand new players don't already know they're going to like Bloodborne when they start. They need a reason to keep dying, they need an investment to make them feel like that learning process is worth it. The player who is going through the game and just cowering behind a raised shield all the time probably isn't having the most fun they could have, but at least they're experiencing the game. They have a chance to build up that investment which makes them want to keep going, and that is something I think bloodborne is actually lacking. It teaches new players perfectly, but it doesn't give them a reason to want to learn.

I agree with a lot of this. One thing though is that I never found how the Souls games are considered hard because it's really just getting into a different mindset vs gaining actual skills or getting better. If you play the games with just the mindset of surviving first and foremost, you should rarely die regardless of playstyle. I played Dark Souls (my 1st Souls game) and made it through several dungeons without dying once because I just constantly choose the action that was best for not dying. I played through Sen's Fortress not dying once because I merely paid attention to the environment. Then, if you play the Bloodborne way, you should be doing just fine if you played any action combat games before because Souls' enemies are rather slow and far less aggressive compared to a games like DMC, Bayo, or Ninja Gaiden.