Despite sharing the same DNA, Bloodborne is not a sequel to Dark Souls. I personally don't want a carbon copy of a game I've played before. Isn't that one of the things we often collectively lament as gamers? The notion that all games are just molds of other games?
I absolutely love that Bloodborne is not laid out exactly like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. I love that there's no Estus Flasks, or Bonfires placed at convenient intervals. I love that the weapon selection is focused and precluded, instead of a large amount of weapons that will mean nothing within a good hour of playtime. I love that they have approached the overall game design from a different angle than their previous titles. After all, they are all totally different series.
I haven't checked my playtime, but I'm at least 20 hours into the game, and it's been quite the amazing ride. Just like Demon's Souls, I feel that Bloodborne embodies it's premise in everything from the visuals, music, narrative, level design, and gameplay mechanics. It is, in my opinion, masterclass in tight, purposeful game design. Nothing feels like it was painted with a broad brush. Everything is particular.
Personally, I had no fucking idea who Miyazaki was until about a month ago, despite loving both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls (never played DS2). I think he and his team have created an exceptional experience, even when it is stilled flawed in some ways (I will never love the camera; it's biggest fault).
Things like not having classes, or a large variety of weapons are not oversights by a designer that doesn't know what he wants in his game. It all comes off as very particular and specific. Bloodborne is not a Souls game. Where I feel that Demon's and Dark are similar enough to belong in the "Souls Family," Bloodborne is different enough to be its own thing.
I love it.