Search
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Bloodborne in Video Games
Aug 13, 2018
Incredible atmosphere (5 more)
Great variety of enemies
Beautiful art and imagery
Interesting Lore (optional)
Plenty of different ways to play
Great combat mechanics
Can be difficult (1 more)
Not as easy and some people make it look
Challenging and Satisfying
Contains spoilers, click to show
Bloodborne is part of the famous series of games such as Demon Souls and Dark Souls, which if you know those previous games, you'll know that they are infamous for their difficulty, even spawning an entire meme phrase that simply says "git gud".
Bloodborne however, stands aside from the souls series because it's combat mechanics are faster and each enemy requires the player to evolve their skills and tactics in order to progress. The first major difference in Bloodborne that might throw previous souls players off, is the fact that there is no shield. Instead the Hunter wields a right handed melee weapon and in the left hand they wild a ranged weapon in place of a shield. This ranged weapon at first is primarily used not for damage, but for parry's/counter attacks.
The lack of shield helps the player evolve their combat from hiding behind a shield like in the souls games, to being more aggressive in a fight but also tactical because during your first run through of the game, you'll simply be dealing with each enemy through trial and error until you learn their attacks and learn how to defeat them. This is something that has been in every souls game and that is why these games are so rewarding.
The reason Bloodborne is my favourite is because of this speed that makes you evolve in combat. I ran into this game thinking it was like other RPG games where I could pretty much take on any beginning level enemy and even if they packed a punch I'd take out the enemy with a thin line of health left, only to use a few health potions and repeat. But Bloodborne? Good God you can't rush this game!
Every enemy has their own attack system that varies. Some Yarnhamites are more vicious that other, and some are more defensive and cautious. There are also enemies that are deceptive. If you were to come across a large, fat troll in a fantasy world, you'd expect them to be rather slow, especially when swinging a weapon. You'd only expect the force and weight of the weapon to give speed to a swing. But the large troll creatures in Bloodborne are deceptively fast and even if you keep some distance between you, they can leap really quickly and instantly pummel you with a cinder block.
But I'm not going to reveal too much about enemies because it's easier and more fun to test out the game for yourself.
Boss fights are the main factor for the infamous difficulty of the souls series and Bloodborne is no stranger to this element either. There are Two bosses in the beginning of the game. One is optional but I would highly recommend facing it. The other boss is your first taste (if you didn't kill the optional boss first) of the challenges you'll face. Both bosses help prepare for later boss fights because of their different combat styles.
The first (optional) boss is the Cleric Beast on the bridge in the beginning level, and it is intimidating as fuck for a beginner of the souls series. If you haven't watched or played a souls game before and you go into Bloodborne (or any of them) with no knowledge of the scale of bosses, then they are intimidating in comparison to your measly character size. However once you learn this boss, and face later bosses, you'll realize that this boss is one of the easiest to face.
The next boss and the main boss of the beginning level, who is not optional as defeating him let's you progress through the story, is Father Gascoigne, another Hunter in the world of Bloodborne and the first of many you'll come across but facing this hunter is by far one of the most painstakingly challenging beginning fights to a game I've ever had to face. In my first run through I died to him so so soooo many times and sometimes it was simply cos he was on low health and I got cocky and fucked up. However defeating this boss, and any boss in this game, really feels like an achievement.
I've realised iv made this review hella long but that's because Bloodborne cannot be easily reviewed in just a few words but I'll do my best to do a quick overall conclusion as to why this is my favourite game:
The level design isn't flawless but it is incredible and the atmosphere created through sound design and soundtrack make this game incredibly in depth and really creepy which I love because even after a few play through I still get creeped out and even jump at some of the jumpscares that I forget about!
The weapons of this game are all well designed aesthetically and though I know certain ones I never use, they are all useable depending on player preference and style of play. There's so much to choose from and learn and every item in this game has a description that teaches the player more about the Lore of the world but that is of course optional and isn't required necessarily to understand the games main quest plot.
This game also requires exploration because the path the player needs to take isn't set out for them which makes the game less linear meaning that you can play this game differently every time you play it. It also might mean that you'll need to look up the paths you need to take online or in a guide in order to just get through the game and complete it. Otherwise it could take you hours, maybe days to figure out where you need to go.
The combat mechanics of Bloodborne are some of the best I've ever seen and played with and that's why it stands out to me above the other souls games.
The boss fights are intense and each new boss helps the player to adapt and evolve their combat skills and tactics in order to overcome the enemy.
The world is very heavily Lovecraftian and therefore the Lore is incredible but also optional. Also, there are easier ways to fight this games enemies including bosses, so if you're struggling, then Google it and there will be hundreds of players in the same boat as you, and in my opinion there's no wrong way to play games like this. If it remains fun and let's me complete the storyline, such as summoning AI for boss battles in offline mode. Then play however you want to because it's you playing the game, not some internet troll who says you're shit and/or cheating the game. If it's possible to do in game, it's part of the game...deal with it!
There are faults such as minor framerate glitches, and glitches with the ragdoll bodies of defeated enemies falling through the environment. There are also some elements that are part of the game such as windows for visceral attacks and hitboxes which sometimes feel like bullshit, but this also helps you evolve so....pros and cons.
My final comment is this;
The best way to learn about this game and enjoy it, is to play it for yourself. It's hard to put into words (even this amount of words in this review) just how incredible this game looks and feels. So if you have a Playstation 4 then grab yourself a copy of Bloodborne and enjoy!
Fear the Old blood!
Bloodborne however, stands aside from the souls series because it's combat mechanics are faster and each enemy requires the player to evolve their skills and tactics in order to progress. The first major difference in Bloodborne that might throw previous souls players off, is the fact that there is no shield. Instead the Hunter wields a right handed melee weapon and in the left hand they wild a ranged weapon in place of a shield. This ranged weapon at first is primarily used not for damage, but for parry's/counter attacks.
The lack of shield helps the player evolve their combat from hiding behind a shield like in the souls games, to being more aggressive in a fight but also tactical because during your first run through of the game, you'll simply be dealing with each enemy through trial and error until you learn their attacks and learn how to defeat them. This is something that has been in every souls game and that is why these games are so rewarding.
The reason Bloodborne is my favourite is because of this speed that makes you evolve in combat. I ran into this game thinking it was like other RPG games where I could pretty much take on any beginning level enemy and even if they packed a punch I'd take out the enemy with a thin line of health left, only to use a few health potions and repeat. But Bloodborne? Good God you can't rush this game!
Every enemy has their own attack system that varies. Some Yarnhamites are more vicious that other, and some are more defensive and cautious. There are also enemies that are deceptive. If you were to come across a large, fat troll in a fantasy world, you'd expect them to be rather slow, especially when swinging a weapon. You'd only expect the force and weight of the weapon to give speed to a swing. But the large troll creatures in Bloodborne are deceptively fast and even if you keep some distance between you, they can leap really quickly and instantly pummel you with a cinder block.
But I'm not going to reveal too much about enemies because it's easier and more fun to test out the game for yourself.
Boss fights are the main factor for the infamous difficulty of the souls series and Bloodborne is no stranger to this element either. There are Two bosses in the beginning of the game. One is optional but I would highly recommend facing it. The other boss is your first taste (if you didn't kill the optional boss first) of the challenges you'll face. Both bosses help prepare for later boss fights because of their different combat styles.
The first (optional) boss is the Cleric Beast on the bridge in the beginning level, and it is intimidating as fuck for a beginner of the souls series. If you haven't watched or played a souls game before and you go into Bloodborne (or any of them) with no knowledge of the scale of bosses, then they are intimidating in comparison to your measly character size. However once you learn this boss, and face later bosses, you'll realize that this boss is one of the easiest to face.
The next boss and the main boss of the beginning level, who is not optional as defeating him let's you progress through the story, is Father Gascoigne, another Hunter in the world of Bloodborne and the first of many you'll come across but facing this hunter is by far one of the most painstakingly challenging beginning fights to a game I've ever had to face. In my first run through I died to him so so soooo many times and sometimes it was simply cos he was on low health and I got cocky and fucked up. However defeating this boss, and any boss in this game, really feels like an achievement.
I've realised iv made this review hella long but that's because Bloodborne cannot be easily reviewed in just a few words but I'll do my best to do a quick overall conclusion as to why this is my favourite game:
The level design isn't flawless but it is incredible and the atmosphere created through sound design and soundtrack make this game incredibly in depth and really creepy which I love because even after a few play through I still get creeped out and even jump at some of the jumpscares that I forget about!
The weapons of this game are all well designed aesthetically and though I know certain ones I never use, they are all useable depending on player preference and style of play. There's so much to choose from and learn and every item in this game has a description that teaches the player more about the Lore of the world but that is of course optional and isn't required necessarily to understand the games main quest plot.
This game also requires exploration because the path the player needs to take isn't set out for them which makes the game less linear meaning that you can play this game differently every time you play it. It also might mean that you'll need to look up the paths you need to take online or in a guide in order to just get through the game and complete it. Otherwise it could take you hours, maybe days to figure out where you need to go.
The combat mechanics of Bloodborne are some of the best I've ever seen and played with and that's why it stands out to me above the other souls games.
The boss fights are intense and each new boss helps the player to adapt and evolve their combat skills and tactics in order to overcome the enemy.
The world is very heavily Lovecraftian and therefore the Lore is incredible but also optional. Also, there are easier ways to fight this games enemies including bosses, so if you're struggling, then Google it and there will be hundreds of players in the same boat as you, and in my opinion there's no wrong way to play games like this. If it remains fun and let's me complete the storyline, such as summoning AI for boss battles in offline mode. Then play however you want to because it's you playing the game, not some internet troll who says you're shit and/or cheating the game. If it's possible to do in game, it's part of the game...deal with it!
There are faults such as minor framerate glitches, and glitches with the ragdoll bodies of defeated enemies falling through the environment. There are also some elements that are part of the game such as windows for visceral attacks and hitboxes which sometimes feel like bullshit, but this also helps you evolve so....pros and cons.
My final comment is this;
The best way to learn about this game and enjoy it, is to play it for yourself. It's hard to put into words (even this amount of words in this review) just how incredible this game looks and feels. So if you have a Playstation 4 then grab yourself a copy of Bloodborne and enjoy!
Fear the Old blood!
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated Gideon's Angel in Books
Aug 15, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/