Bloodborne only has one Shield in the whole game

GearNuke writes: "Developers From Software are definitely trying to differentiate Bloodborne from it's predecessors the Demon Souls and Dark Souls series by mixing up things up around. For one there's the addition of guns and a heavy emphasis on dodging. They also seem to be removing some elements like Shields which we've found out there's only one of in the whole game."

[-Foxtrot]

Oh no...4/10

Lack of Shields /s

[Kingthrash360]

A different approach to a souls style game.....negatively happens. Lol wow. Bloodborn needs no shields when the Dodge is so effective. I've been playing for almost a week...i didn't miss a shield at all. It's an awesome game.
Another example of journalism hurting games. When will it end

[pedrof93]

This is not true, the game has more than one shield ! I know !

[bouzebbal]

Soon "Bloodborne only has one pair of socks through the whole game"
keep hating...

[Helios86]

Agreed, same here, didn't even think of using it.

[vishmarx]

thankfully its also becoming irrelevant to purchases.
a staggering amount of million sellers have poor metacritic scores
dying light, hardline,dbz,drivclub, evil within,destiny etc

its good to see that people judge games for themselves

[Imalwaysright]

"Another example of journalism hurting games"

Do yourself a favor and read the article. Not a single negative word was said towards Bloodborne.

[pixelsword]

"Do yourself a favor and read the article. Not a single negative word was said towards Bloodborne."

Other than the phrasing of "Bloodborne only has one Shield in the whole game", of course.

While the title was phrased factually (if true), if the emphasis was on actually talking about the differences between Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne, then the title should reflect that. I would respect that and read the article.

This type of title serves more as bait that appears to indicate that the article would have negative spin, thereby stirring people to go on there to defend Bloodborne. In all honesty can't respect that type of journalism so I'll pass for now, thank you.

[Khajiit86]

Dodging is much more effective than standing there with a shield and waiting to absorb the impact of one of those HUGE beasts.

[Kingthrash360]

@ ima
I don't read articles with click bait titles...i refuse to be baited.
Don't get me wrong I do read article's that have a proper title...but if what you say is true...then this was indeed a click bait article.

[thricetold]

@pixel

How is the title negative? I hate shields in the souls series and plenty of fans do as well. Its only negative if you were the type that liked to hide behind them the whole damn game.

[Skizelli]

The title is obviously click bait. We should all know by now that "journalists" focus on the negatives to ruffle feathers and generate hits.

That being said, I couldn't care less if there's only one shield. I'm looking forward to something new.

[Rachel_Alucard]

I saw a stream where someone stunlocked an endgame boss to death by just shooting him over and over. If anything the bosses need shields

[Gazondaily]

The author in the article isn't complaining here. He's just drawing attention to that fact.

Many of us know that the game does't need shields because by the new focus in aggressive combat.

[GribbleGrunger]

Yeah. I think the problem is the use of 'only' and 'whole' in the headline. If it said 'Bloodborne has one shield' then any indication of negativity has gone.

[breakpad]

judging by the title ..no, the author is trying to create turmoil probably negative ..

[Ezz2013]

Does that need an article though ?!
Who really cares about the game having one shild or many shilds ?!

[Gazondaily]

The word only has turned this whole thing into a negative?

Why don't people actually read the content of the article instead of placing so much weight on one word. Comparative to previous games, the word 'only' can be justified.

The first comment hardly helped at all.

"Who really cares about the game having one shild or many shilds ?!"

Fans of the series? Tbh, I dont care for the shields because turtling is hardly fun imo. The new combat system is wicked.

[Xavior_Reigns]

Indeed "only" has, look how fast this heated up. Tells you there's trolls lurking for anything negative (or perceived.)

[GribbleGrunger]

Well, Septic, you can't go throwing words around without considering their implications. You either do it by accident or do it by design. Think of it this way: If a mother was told her son had scored 7/10 in a test and she said to him, 'You only scored 7/10', that child would sense his mother was disappointed. If she then stressed the context by saying 'You only scored 7/10 in the whole test', then that child would feel as if his mother wanted to stress that she was disappointed, which would make him feel even worse.

The fact that this article uses both 'only' AND 'whole' suggests design.

[Gazondaily]

@Gribble

Well in that case, we also need to be weary of articles that dole out words like 'Spectacular', 'Glorious' and 'exclusive' as well because they may be statements of fact but they also have implications as well (and are done for very similar reasons as the ones you guys are elucidating above).

Bloodborne only has one shield in the entire game doesn't seem that bad because of what the Souls game had. My approach would be to read the title and then go into the article and assess the contents instead of instantly reacting and playing the victim act.

Anyone who has followed Bloodborne will know that the game doesn't need a shield at all. Lets just make that clear at the start before negativity takes hold instead of embracing that negativity by making a useless sarcastic comment is all I'm saying.

[GribbleGrunger]

@Septic:

Words like 'glorious' or 'spectacular' are not words that IMPLY something, they're words that deliberately state something; although I agree that without context these words could be valued differently and subjectively, as in 'love', 'beauty' or 'ugly'. I DO take your point though ... BUT I'd sooner live in a world of optimism than a world of pessimism, as would that little boy:

'You scored a whole 7/10 and that's glorious.'

I'd rather that was my mother.

[bouzebbal]

You are talking in 2 different directions.
First one is that the game doesn't need shield, second is that ONLY isn't a bad thing due to that.

The word "only", regardless of how useful shields are, is often used to express insufficiency.
Wording of the title is bad, no matter how hard you try to defend it.

Yesterday i ONLY squat 180kg.. BUT that's actually my max. Paradoxal heh?

EDIT:

"Is it not a possibility that fans of the Souls games just MIGHT be disappointed in the lack of shields?

So COMPARATIVE to the Souls games, the word 'only' is justified (my days, talk about being pedantic here). "

No, this is called Bloodborne, not Souls whatever.
Don't understand why people compare these two, especially as you say that shields aren't necessary. So in other words, this article is completely pointless because Bloodborne is LACKING shields AND it has a different gameplay.

[Gazondaily]

@abzdine

"You are talking in 2 different directions.
First one is that the game doesn't need shield, second is that ONLY isn't a bad thing due to that. "

No I said that in MY opinion, the game doesn't need shields, which is why in my post above I said:

***"Who really cares about the game having one shild or many shilds ?***

"Fans of the series? Tbh, I DON'T for the shields because turtling is hardly fun imo. The new combat system is wicked."

Is it not a possibility that fans of the Souls games just MIGHT be disappointed in the lack of shields?

So COMPARATIVE to the Souls games, the word 'only' is justified (my days, talk about being pedantic here).

BUT, and here's the thing; the article doesn't portray it in a negative light at all.

So who are the one's guilty here of fanning and enabling any sort of negativity? The first few commentators who assumed it straight away, who placed so much emphasis on a couple of words instead of actually reading the article.

There is no paradox here.

@Gribble

" I DO take your point though ... BUT I'd sooner live in a world of optimism than a world of pessimism"

That blind optimism can lead to negativity. That little boy, whose mum always praised his potentially mediocre efforts; through her lack fo proper critical and honest analysis would have dulled his senses so much that, the moment he set foot in the real world, he'd being for a rude awakening. Exposed, unprepared and defeated due to a skewed sense of what is 'good' or not.

I see your point though but the scenario above also has distinct problems here because (1) It has a similar potential to mislead (2) Is obviously done for personal gain and that 'optimism' operates as a thin veneer for personal profit, just as it might do here.

[XB1_PS4]

Septic is right.
It's not the article's fault that you think it's negative. Read a bit, and you'll find out.

@Below

I understand that. There's nothing wrong with the title. I think some people are just being touchy about this game. Anything ambiguous that can even be interpreted as negative is being blown out of proportion.

The title isn't even worth mentioning.

[GribbleGrunger]

@septic

But his efforts were not 'mediocre'. You're assuming they were because his mother said 'only 7/10.' (see how that simple example worked subliminally?).

As far as we knew, Bloodborne had NO shields in the game. The information was constantly and consistently informing us that we now had guns instead. So, for this headline to ring true, it would have to be: 'Bloodborne DOES have a shield.'

That's neither optimistic or pessimistic, it's factual. Here's two sentences:

He scored 7/10 (factual, nothing implied)
He only scored 7/10 (implying we should judge 7 as 'bad'.)

@XB1_PS4:

We're discussing the title and semantics.

[LightofDarkness]

Reality check, guys.

The ONLY (pun most definitely intended) people who are reading this far into the title and gleaning some ulterior motive from it are you, the dyed-in-the-wool Sony fans. This imaginary audience of idiots you've valiantly stood up to protect from potentially callous, manipulative headlines is nowhere to be found. There is a single one-bubble troll who's abstracted this from the headline, no doubt only because you've given him the idea by getting so riled up about it in the first place. Now let's try to boil this down to its crux: why are you so fervently opposed to this headline, despite no apparent damage and seemingly everyone (yourselves excluded) abstracting the appropriate context and meaning? There is no problem here, only one you've invented. You basically went in looking for a fight. You've pretty much manufactured controversy.

Now ask why.

[Gazondaily]

@Gribble

It didn't work subliminally at all. I had feeling you would put weight on that score. I was giving you an example of a kid who did perform in a way many would consider to be mediocre (the Sonic Boom equivalent if you will).

Forget the 7/10 malarkey. I'm not going by that.

"So, for this headline to ring true, it would have to be: 'Bloodborne DOES have a shield.' "

Are you saying the above title is false?

Honestly I get what you're saying but my issue is that people are being terribly nit-picky. Yes the article title was most likely devised to be 'attractive' in that way but why couldn't someone nip the issue in the bud in the first comment?

But you know who the real culprits are here in my opinion? The insecure one's feeding this by shedding tears about review score conspiracies etc. I get their defensive reaction, but they are making matters worse.

Sensationlism in journalism is here to stay. Why not educate people on it and offer clarity as opposed to giving it a platform?

Anyway, lets all make it clear here that shields are a non-issue. The game has one shield. Okay fine but for those that don't know, Bloodborne focuses on aggressive combat.

The shield itself is there for novelty purposes maybe because, as the article says:

"The Shield is not as effective as in previous Souls games as you can’t time your blocks and parry. Also the Shield isn’t completely resistant "

So yeah, aside from AOE attacks, it's not a big deal apparently.

@Gribble (below)

I know you're not upset or going all out defensive. You're the only bleeding guy here who I can have a sensible discussion with lol xD

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, especially about optimism vs pessimism. Just adding some of my thoughts on it tis all.

"I don't get the opportunity to do that though because I see no point in going into threads about games on a platform I don't own."

If only others followed suit Gribble :)

[GribbleGrunger]

@LightofDarkness:

Controversy? That's quite a hefty word in the context of a civilised discussion on the semantics of a headline.

@Septic:

'Yes the article title was most likely devised to be 'attractive' in that way'

That's all I'm saying. I'm not angry, I'm not upset, I'm not going into defence mode ... I'm just 'interested'. If I were to venture into articles pertaining to other console exclusives, I would say very much the same thing. I don't get the opportunity to do that though because I see no point in going into threads about games on a platform I don't own.

edit: LOL. Thanks Septic. Here's another bubble because I hate you!!!! :)

[XB1_PS4]

@Gribble
@Septic

fight fight fight kiss kiss

@Gribble Below
I would say it's more debating, than discussing.

[Spotie]

There's such a thing as an implication, you know? And to most readers of the English language, the words used in this title imply negativity.

"You only sold one candy bar the whole day." Sounds like you suck at selling candy... unless you only had one candy bar.

"He only had one job to do in the whole plan." Anyone hearing or reading that would think he, whoever he is, blew that one task.

I challenge you, Septic, LightofDarkness(who somehow turned this into a fanboy thing; kinda shows your own disposition, doesn't it?) to find situations where using those two words in the same fashion as in the title DOES NOT imply negativity.

[GribbleGrunger]

@XB1_PS4:

No, discuss, discuss, discuss, sleepover ...

@Spotie:

I think Septic was talking in terms of 'generally speaking' there and not implying 'every'. I couldn't entirely disagree with him on that one to be honest; however, I CAN see how the context of this conversation and the inadequacies of communication through text could lead to confusion. These things are best discussed over a pint.

There's no room in text for the subtly of body language or the natural ebb and flow of communication to take place. We're reduced to: statement followed by statement followed by statement ... etc. You don't get the feedback you get in real life so you can't then immediately rephrase what you are trying to say on the fly. When it's typed, it's typed.

That's the unfortunate thing about forums. You then spend more time explaining what you were trying to say instead of discussing what you actually meant.

[Mr_cheese]

GribbleGrunger for president!

[Gazondaily]

@Spotie

What Gribble said. Spot on really.

@abzdine (Sorry I missed your edit)

"No, this is called Bloodborne, not Souls whatever.
Don't understand why people compare these two, especially as you say that shields aren't necessary"

So you are going to pretend that this game shares the same DNA as the Souls games, has pretty much the same gameplay type, level design and format minus the change in aggressive combat? From the same development outfit who have also confirmed the same as above?

There is a big reason why people compare the Souls games to Bloodborne. I thought that much would be obvious.

[GribbleGrunger]

@Mr_cheese:

3 against
2 for

I demand a recount

Quick, pass me a hard hat and a freshly pressed boiler suit ... and get me a fresh-faced mother with a baby.

[monkeyDzoro]

From the article, last lines : "It’s not all bad news though"... bad news ? bad news ? What's bad news then if shields aren't that important in the game.

If the title phrasing wasn't implying bad news with the absence of shields (its lessen importance: absence/weakness/non-effective ness) in the game, why would the author mention "ALL BAD NEWS" while referring to it, in the conclusion of the article ?

You said : "Why don't people actually read the content of the article instead of placing so much weight on one word".
So my question is : did you even read the article YOURSELF ?

EDIT : I mention it and it's in brackets. All bad news = less shields/weaker shields/less effective shields. Long story short, the absence of shields and good ones is "bad news" TO HIM. Even if, that was expected and clearly mentionned by the DEVS as soon as they announced this game. Now they're trying to make "news" of it... and bad ones BTW.

[Gazondaily]

@MonkeyDzoro

"So my question is : did you even read the article YOURSELF ?"

AND its my time to turn that question BACK TO YOU.

Because this is what the article says:

"Also the Shield isn’t completely resistant and will let certain attacks through, maybe because it’s made out of Wood? It’s not all bad news though as it might help with AOE attacks, worth giving a try."

As you can see, its talking about the shield being a lot weaker and not being completely resistant. But it might help with AOE attacks so its not all bad news.

Reading comprehension my friend. Read the article properly ;)

[JasonKCK]

lol people complaining over a word. So if a title said "Bloodborne Is A Good Game" It would be a negative because it said "good" and not perfect?

[KwietStorm_BLM]

As bad as journalism has become in our industry, the community has gotten just as sensitive, jumping to defend any and everything we see fit, even when we haven't even played it yet. Neither the article or the their is saying anything negative. It's actually drawing more emphasis on the change in gameplay style, which doesn't focus on shields and blocking. That is why it says ONLY. Added emphasis. That is it. Games turn out to be turds, articles call them out for it, but the author is hating. Good games have valid criticisms, an article calls them out, and the author is a hater who needed something to complain about. You all are just hurting yourselves with the mob mentality.

[Why o why]

I agree with the both of ya. You've both made valid points. Sometimes we read things the wrong way. I can see how using the word only can be seen as click bait but if someone said it only took 1 shot to kill the rat you wouldn't see that as a negative but a positive. Good debate guys.

[Canary]

True. And I'm not about to judge the game until I play it. But in general I don't like the idea of removing options--I would rather the game accommodate sword-and-shield playstyles, and simply make them less optimal.

[LightofDarkness]

Give it a rest lads, there were no negative connotations in the article, they're merely using this as a metric to point out how different Bloodborne is from the Souls series.

Let The Order's poor review scores go. There is no conspiracy against Sony. More over, you are not required to pro actively damage control in every Bloodborne article, the game is great and will stand on its own merits without your "help."

[kurruptor]

Cancelling my collector's edition pre-order due to Foxtrot's in-depth review.

[MONOLITHICIDE]

And actually shouldnt this be considered a spoiler. From my understanding there were no shields just your defensive hand gun.

[Dread]

This argument is so ridiculous its amazing. Read the artcle please. Their is no hate towards your beloved Sony so just chill. the game looks like its gonna be awesome so stop the whining please.

Its like your trying to set it up as its the media's fault in case the game tanks, which it probably wont. In fact I bet if the game gets great reviews all u extremists will still complain that it did not get perfect tens.

@Fox
I know u were joking and it was funny. I was replying to the ridiculous argument that followed your joke.

[-Foxtrot]

Beloved Sony...."whining" lol

I'm making a joke, the only person who needs to chill is you mate for over reacting and trying to turn this into a fanboy thing.

[Kal-V3]

Only one shield..and it's the Nvidia Shield...9/10. lol

[wsoutlaw87]

The title is definitely written as click bait. Phrasing it with words like "only" and "the whole game" applies a negative context to it like the game is lacking something. Its not terrible though, and maybe the author is actally bothered by this. This article just really isn't serving anything though.

[xavierbigdaddy1972]

Lol. Bubbles sir

[Condemnedman]

Do you guys say this every time?? Its a bit boring and over used.

[Muzikguy]

This game is going to be amazing! I've never seen a game get so much hate before, so that can only mean good things!! Title comes off as flamebait and negative. Common theme for this game :/

I have a date with Walmart in less than 9 hours. I really can't stand her, she's gotten so big and cheap over the years. Just using her to get my game

[Relientk77]

Ok? So what

[imt558]

Who needs a shield anyway.

[JMaine518]

That's fine. Honesty I was fine with no shields. I want to get nice with the guns to open up attacks.

[Rimeskeem]

Can you block with weapons? if you can then it really doesnt matter

[GribbleGrunger]

You parry with the gun. That's what it's for.

[rajman]

Which is awesome when you pull it off, but not everyone can be parried

[LightDiego]

A shield? I will use a shotgun instead!

[uth11]

ugh, cancelling my preorder again! :P

[ifistbrowni]

again.. lol.

[Kal-V3]

Me too. Can't dual shield...2 out of Skyrim.

[Insomnia_84]

Awesome!!!

[ThunderPulse]

Everyone will carry the same damn shield in PVP and I'll use a shield break weapon.

[WeirdShroom]

Ew. Shield and Sword is the way I like my Souls, none of this shooty transformey BS. No loss.

[Master-H]

Actually there is a loss, and it's yours.

[GTgamer]

Not a souls game sooooo :P it's Blooddbourne

[Xavior_Reigns]

"Act faster people! We have to desperately find something to attract the fanboys of the opposite camp."

"Ah talk about the lack of shields... who cares if they were never the focus. Come now trolls, this is your cue, get us clicks while you rage!"

[WelkinCole]

Never needed shields. I am death incarnate. Always kill by parry and counters.

[Hellsvacancy]

Exactly, I beat Dark Souls 1 and 2 without a shield

[WelkinCole]

I feel so badass when i do it. Now it is going to be more glourious with the more offensive approach in bloodbourne.

[nix]

well.. there goes my plan of playing the game safe.

[DarXyde]

As long as I can parry, this is no loss.

[q8kik]

*Waiting for the update file to finish*

[Summons75]

Update file and 16 looooong hours.

[killacal13]

Wtf is wrong with your internet

[Summons75]

@killacal

16 hours (at the time was in reference to how long was left until midnight.)

[g-nome]

Two handed swords needs two hands.

[ThunderPulse]

I could dual wield 2 handed swords on Dark Souls.

[Crummybear]

Lol whoever thought they would be using shield in this game has clearly not been paying attention.

[PillowInUrBassDrum]

"At no point was I able to use two shields. The game continues to force you to HAVE to use some sort of weapon, like a sword, scythe or guns. There is no opportunity to equip a second shield for defensive purposes. From Software needs to learn that some gamers don't care about doing damage; they simply wish to play defense to the point that the enemy fatigues itself and collapses in exhaustion."

4/10 - a disappointing, offensive romp that features too many cool weapons and not enough ways to block attacks, trying to make up for this with some sort of refined and effective dodge command. Simply unacceptable.

[soul-assassin-]

Good....shields are for pussys!

[joeorc]

@PillowInUrBassDrum

That Review is freaking Awesome in its Take or other Game review standards..10/10 Humor Review...have a +1 bubble.

"From Software needs to learn that some gamers don't care about doing damage; they simply wish to play defense to the point that the enemy fatigues itself and collapses in exhaustion."

LMAO priceless and Ironic

[MasterCornholio]

LOL

There should be an achievement for playing the game without a shield.

[MasterCornholio]

Holy crap I said achievement.

0.0

I meant trophy.

I'm so sorry.

:(

[Artemidorus]

Pre order canceled, Playstaton 4 going on eBay.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

@"Bloodborne only has one Shield in the whole game"

http://31.media.tumblr.com/...

https://2982-presscdn-29-70...

https://uproxx.files.wordpr...

[Inzo]

WHAT!!!!! ONLY ONE SHIELD, FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME, HOW CAN THIS BE??? DAMN YOU!!!!!..........DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!!!!!!

[LoveOfTheGame]

Stop asking me, it's their game design not mine. :)

[Inzo]

Ok, I'll give you that one ;)

[FPS_D3TH]

I get the need to report on games about their questionable game design choices thanks to today's day and age of extreme over hyping but wtf kinda journalism is articles like these. About on par with shit like esquire and tmz. Gtfo here and report something worthwhile. Quit making articles about one of the tiniest potential problems and blowing it up as if it's causing world hunger. Get a job.

[theRell]

One shield to rule them all

[shallowpoint]

Lol! They are trying hard aren't they:)

[xActionBasturdx]

1 shield cool with me...I always duel wield anyways...goota keep those duel rapiers on deck for my man nyanta from log horizon lol

[masterfox]

and ?

[jbronie123]

1 shield the whole the game? 6/10

[Kal-V3]

10/6*
There, fixed it for you.. ;P

[MasterCornholio]

Shield looks like garbage anyways.

http://bloodborne.wiki.fext...

I would be embarassed to use that instead of this.

http://gfycat.com/SpiffyChe...

Now thats a weapon.

[S2Killinit]

not enough shields 2/10. Had it had more shields, or if the shields were longer, it would have been tolerable. Its a Shiledless mess. /S

[IrisHeart]

...This game wasn't suppose to have a shield in the first place...we've known this for 1 year already.

[Dr_Angus]

If you are mad because of no shields, then I forever label you as a filthy casul.

[Bytor]

If Bloodborne was XBox Exclusive" Brilliant free form game play no shields needed.

[ibrake4naps]

Three or more shields or I'm not buying

[theFAYEsorceress]

if you need a shield, you should be in the kitchen making ME a sammich.

[Donnywho]

10 Minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.. .9 now. heh heh heh