Obviously 'fun' isn't an objective constant you can apply to any given person's experience with a game, movie, TV show etc. However, the thing that keeps coming back - from Videogamer.com's 'Alternative Review' to IGN's latest 'How Bloodborne Lost Me' article - is that they seem to be looking for the instant gratification and high-octane thrills of other titles - as well as going down the path of "Well a game is supposed to be fun, and challenge, tedium, grinding etc. aren't". Well, yes and no. People definitely complained a bit about the random battles in Final Fantasy back in the day, but they were conducive to the experience - you got better at the systems in play and worked through them, grinding as much or as little as you liked. It's part of the game, and although their were bugbears with the annoyance of pulling you into battle when you were trying to get from place to place, at no point did anyone say "This isn't what video games should be" - and therein lies the rub. Bloodborne is utterly unforgiving in its approach of handing you your derriere on a blood-stained platter - and precisely because of this it asks just as much of veterans as it does newcomers. You're definitely more equipped to tackle the hordes if you've played the previous titles, but there's nothing in the way of an allowance for that. Maybe the idea of a steep incline doesn't appeal to you, and that's totally fine, but don't book a table at the steakhouse if you're a vegetarian. How have you found Bloodborne so far? Is this article too unfair, right on the money or neither? Let us know in the comments and join the Facebook for more!
