The Great Debate

Which game has better combat, Sekiro or Bloodborne? Also don’t bring up soulstrash, they don’t have real combat.

Attached: 8F28E4BB-31E6-4E9C-B958-26FAFE7EE430.jpg (600x338, 42.2K)

I prefer memeburn

I'll go with Sekiro, something about clashing swords and using the right tool just feels way better than dodge and hit.

I don't see why you chose these two games for "real combat".

It would be like saying "Which one has the best combat: Monster Hunter Freedom Unite or Monster Hunter Stories?" You chose two of the most random entries in a list of games who have a very specific type of combat that does not translate into the real world at all.

Case in point, the over-reliance on parries. The term "parry" in actual combat refers to blocking an incoming attack by moving it physically using your weapon or shield (or they used to do it with their off-hand too).

You cannot parry large weapons like greatswords, greataxes, halberds and lances. You cannot parry with a gun like in Bloodborne - that's just called a quick draw. Similarly, Wolf's katana is designed for single foot duels and is not viable for long missions; the blade would break in short order. In all of the Souls games, the "combat" is just "avoid damage by performing the QTE-esque dodge button", "lock enemy into stun frames via unrealistic parry mechanic" and "hit infinitely until it dies with no regard for your weapon". NONE of them have realistic combat in any measure.

>Also don’t bring up soulstrash, they don’t have real combat.
As if either of these two games have a deep combat system. Bloodborne is incredibly shallow. There is nothing more to it than dodge and r1 maybe l1 if you're a little bit advance but then again that is only viable on some weapons. Sekiro has a bit more going on for it. You can attack, deflect, dodge, counter. Based on that alone it's the winner but it's still shallow compared to proper action games.

Sekiro

NI-OH.

Let me guess, you like spamming EPIC COMBOS against stationary punching bag mobs like in DMC

>walk in circles and dodgeroll vs actual combat

I like that but i like God Hand even more and it's actually challenging unlike what you Soulsbabies are used to.

>rolling around like an idiot
>combat

BB by far

>God Hand
I kneel.

Exactly, this is why soulstrash shouldn’t be brought up. This thread is only for Sekiro and Bloodborne

Nioh and Nioh 2

Sekiro, easily.

Both are excellent games, but something about bloodborne just feels better to me. I think Sekiro's good boss fights (That miniboss monk in Hirata, Guardian Ape and final boss for example) are among the best combat experiences I've had in vidya, but regular enemies are pretty bad. Bloodborne is consistently good, even against regular enemies.
Bloodborne is also smoother and dodging is more fun than deflecting in my opinion. I wish narrowly dodging an attack rewarded you in BB though.
Can't wait for Bloodborne at higher than 30 fps, be it through a remastered version or emulation in 10 years.

>Yas Forums still can't cope with the fact that Dark Souls 3 is better than both
pathetic

Attached: 1544795127854.png (542x405, 368.92K)

>O O O O O O R1 O O O O
>better than Dark Souls 2, let alone Sekino

even lords of the fallen was better than ds2

Typical DS3fag opinion

you're just coping cus miyazaki came back and btfo'd your shit game

Sekiro is literally the only From game with good combat.

Bloodborne is great *in spite* of its sluggish, boring fucking combat. Bloodborne felt like From wanted to take Dark Souls into a more aggressive action game direction like DMC or NG but they were too afraid to commit to the idea, so you end up with this faster'ish Souls game that wants to push players towards really being aggressive and not block yet it feels half-assed and undercooked. The health regen system could largely be ignored and most players just played Bloodborne like Dark Souls 2-hand roll fest.

Sekiro was From taking the Bloodborne idea and actually committing to it, just straight up making a fast-paced action game, which makes it way better.

I plated both great games, but BB is personally better. There's more variety in builds with more real depth in their move sets (+ optional build depth if you decide to do chalice dungeons) when compared to other titles in the series. I really enjoy Sekiro for being amazing in it's 1 thing but for people who wouldn't like the smaller box you provided it's understandable to be slightly inferior. Oh & I get a massive hardon for anything that mix's Gothic/Victorian, diesel-punk, monster hunting, & Cthulhu mythos. So it admittedly has a head start

Attached: 1550983804179.jpg (589x521, 36.6K)

>Which game has better combat, Sekiro or Bloodborne?
Why does this matter?
>Also don’t bring up soulstrash, they don’t have real combat.
Way to immediately insert your opinion at the start of the thread to ensure the rest of it is trash from the get go.

Attached: 1524868222793.jpg (700x700, 205.97K)

Sekiro by a country mile.
Bloodborne combat is about as shallow as Souls combat. Really doesn't really add that much substance.
The posture bar however, is a total game changer.
DaS>Demon's>Sekiro>Bloodborne>Ds2>Ds3

Rally doesnt really add much substance*

sekiro but i dont understand how you can enjoy BB yet hate on souls, its the same thing. unless youre a sony shill in which that makes sense since you only have 1 game to play all day

Both are good, now fuck off

Sekiro, its the natural evolution from Bloodborne like Bloodborne was from Souls, Dark Souls 3 was a step back and tried to copy Bloodborne too much that shields sucked balls and shieldless is a better playstyle, Elden Ring combat will be interesting, maybe a mix between Sekiro and Dark Souls depending on your weapons maybe.

Nioh has better combat than both of them combined

I'll give you a hint the one that won 2019's GOTY and the one that isn't a console shit exclusive.