Cerberus.Kaeviathan said:
»I played Dark Souls 2, and it was one of the best game I've owned on the PS3. I'm concerned that Bloodborne won't meet the same expectation.
I get the feeling that Bloodborne provides less content than Dark Souls 2, and I researched that the amount of weapons and armors available in Bloodborne is way less than that of Dark Souls 2.
The Dark Souls series, and Demon's Souls, are more based on a medieval'ish theme. You wander the land finding corpses of fallen undead warriors, seeing what armor and weapons you can salvage from them. You might find a sword, a shield, or some armor, but every piece of equipment tells a story. It might be about the owner that died, it might not, but with this game style you can incorporate hundreds of unique weapons and armor.
Don't get me wrong, that's nice, and one of my major complaints for Bloodborne is that they focused too heavily on the design of their current weapons, and the transformations between 1 hand to 2 hand styles. The weapon designs are superior in Bloodborne, but that means less quantity of weapons and armor.
The world design is the best of any souls game. The level design is the best as well, weaving each area together, incorporating shortcuts and doors that take you back to previous areas you once were in before.
The battle speed is slightly faster and more aggressive. You of course do not have a shield so it naturally pushes you to learn to be more aggressive and less defensive, though being defensive / evasive is not a bad thing at all, especially with the most difficult bosses in the game, because you're going to need that skill mastered.
The enemy designs are the best I've seen in any souls game, and that's saying quite a lot, because souls games have a huge reputation for great enemy designs.
Bloodborne's theme is more gothic, that allows more dark and gory themes. The story of bloodborne is a little easier to comprehend than a souls game, but there are secrets lore hunters still haven't figured out yet a few months after release.
Amazing game, I'd say it's just as good as Witcher III, for only 40 dollars, and since you mention money being a concern in the OP, the cheaper game atm would only make more sense. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it's a bad game, at all. Just look at the reviews it got. People love the game and not just fans of previous games. It converted a lot of people into loving these types of games.
But yea, that's just ME. Your tastes might be completely different than mine :) but since you loved DS2, I can promise you that you will not be disappointed as long as you are ACCEPTING of the fact that there will be less armor and weapons than previous games, but you still have plenty of opportunity to switch equipment during your playthrough.