The Sony Playstation.com Bloodborne game screenshots and related videos illuminate some of the game’s playable experience, but I’m trying to look beyond spotlighted, captured specifics and visualize a bigger picture–the game that lurks in the shadows, the game that will be available March 24th. Bloodborne’s most important development component, the game’s story, may set this game alight as a burning achievement of a next-gen gaming experience, an inspirational flame that other developers will follow as they tread their own creative paths. Or, Bloodborne’s story may be walking on a dark path already carved out by Demon’s Souls, the story similarity possibly leading gamers into a triple A “ho-hum.”
So far, I’ve not seen any media that convinces me Bloodborne will be different from Demon’s Souls. The bits and pieces of Bloodborne game-play, Bloodborne music, and Bloodborne blogger talk don’t reveal anything new: Demon’s Soul’s Boletaria is cursed and demons feast on mortals’ souls; Bloodborne’s Yharnam is plagued and beasts feast on denizens (for blood?); Demon’s Souls is set in a medieval-like time period and players wield swords; Bloodborne is Victorian and players now wield guns. (Bloodborne may be faster paced–guess the development team did do something different.) Substituting one time period with another time period and replacing one weapon type with another weapon type is a Demon’s Souls soup recipe stewing with a new group of veggies but using the same soup’s stock. The two Playstation bloggers say nothing to convince me that Bloodborne is different from Demon’s Souls; they only talk about Victorian places and new weapons and scary monsters–oh, my!
Therefore, I’m in the dark about Bloodborne’s story. Bloodborne, so far, looks like a game stewing in a Demon’s Souls broth, one game cloaked inside another game’s shadow. I suppose if the Bloodborne game-play is fun, I shouldn’t care–just play the game. But I’ve gone down a similar dark path with another game series once: Call of Duty.