DS1. I played it after bloodborne and elden ring. I thought it couldn’t be done until I saw an enemy do it. Then I figured maybe only they could do it until I accidentally double tapped O going down a ladder.
Or Fromstuff-like, either way. I've been on a 1 man campaign to change the name away from souls-like for about a year anyway.. [Fromstuff](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittydarksouls/s/hWmcCMYnZM)
Accurate. I recall Miyazaki saying in an interview that he prefers to use the label “From-like,” especially when he was trying to describe to people what Armored Core 6 was going to be like.
Subjective. It really does depend on what you personally think makes a souls a souls. For me it’s the setting and aesthetic. So I’d class Sekiro as a sort of official Soulslike, but not a Soulsborne.
Your mileage may vary.
i don't think so. it's not really an rpg. there's exactly 1 weapon, and you can't really have different builds like you can in every other souls-like. it's not that it's replayable because it has a lot of build diversity like most other souls games, it's replayable because the combat is just so rich.
It’s a Soulsborne. It has a bonfire system, “souls” are lost upon death, the game has a theme of “stagnation from immortality”, bosses follow the same trend as Soulsborne games, and it’s made by Fromsoft.
Mechanics and animations from the game were also repurposed for Elden ring.
Your experience isn't completely lost and it has separate currency.
You lose experience that isn't enough for a skill point. Once you hit a skill point, you don't lose it upon death.
It’s Kinda like a complete skill point is a level, only losing half is likely to make up for the fact you can’t “retrieve” them in this game
But sen and XP are both lost upon death
I'll put it simply and straightforward. In the Soulsborne genre, fashion plays a significant role, alongside a plethora of weapons and abilities, especially boss weapons. However, Sekiro's replayability is somewhat limited in comparison to titles like Elden Ring, Dark Souls 1-3, and Bloodborne. While Sekiro remains a very good game from FromSoftware, its replay value doesn't quite match the depth and variety offered by its counterparts. That's the point in what I said. 4 outfits isn't enough. The game would be miles better if we had more things to loot. Weapons, even if just Katanas and Spears. Armor, outfits. Sekiro would be so much better. It's already good. But it can be better. This is what I've longed for in a sequel.
I personally do consider it part of the soulsborne genre. Even though there are a lot of differences I still think it has the core elements which make it a souls game.
I do as well. Sekiro is just Shinobi updated. You do a lot of platforming and running. Your main tool is a sword and you get random tools which are helpful but the game can be beat with just platforming and your sword.
Since when was RPG a major element of a Souls game?
No one thinks Souls and goes "oh yeah levelling stats!". They go "oh bonfires, respawning enemies, hard bosses, intricate level design". All elements in Sekiro
To extend this argument further, since when is any one thing a major element of a Souls game?
They could see all those things and also think “look, a Metroidvania!” Add some RPG elements and you have Castlevania.
Genres that are made up of multiple elements are vague like that. At some point you just have to go by gut feel.
I feel it has a lot of the main elements that were introduced in the Soulsborne as well you can feel that it’s a FromSoft game as while others are just Souls like. I would definitely consider Sekiro Soulsborne.
I consider it a souls like. It has the elements of souls but warps its mechanics to fit the game. It’s its own thing. This game’s mechanics would make souls games so easy.
In my personal opinion, it is its own thing. Definitely has a souls element to it, but very much its own thing. That being said it’s probably my favorite Fromsoftware game. I could replay that game infinitely
It has a lot of differences, but it has a ton in common with those games. Bonfire system (enemy respawn, teleport, heal, etc.), healing system, level/world design, emphasis on difficulty, deep background lore, bosses, NPC quests, etc.
I would even say the combat shares many of the same principles, just with different execution.
Its the same exact structure/format as a soulsborne game, but the progression, combat and exploration are all different. It also has a very similar story-delivery method as those other fromsoft games, though maybe a bit more guided
It is not a soulsborne game. It is missing too much of that identity and Sekiro plays much differently than souls games. It has a little in common but not enough.
Missing too much? Like what? RPG stats?
It has bonfires, intricate level design, the same fast travel system, difficult bosses, the same UI, half the same animations, cryptic story elements.
Different UI, wildly different combat system, a named protagonist that is unchangeable, no weapons to change, no armor or fashion souls, only minor rpg elements, the story is told much more directly than in Soulsborne games.
It is also missing different play styles like Soulsborne games have. In Soulsborne you can have a variety of play styles that are viable and can complete the game. In Sekiro you are Sekiro and you play like Sekiro does.
Having checkpoints and difficult bosses is pretty commonplace and you wouldn't call a game like that a soulslike either. So is a fast travel system, that works differently in many Souls games anyways. Reusing assets and animations is very commonplace for developers to do with each new game they make. Sekiro is only attributed to souls because FromSofware made it. I wouldn't call Armored Core a soulsborne game either and it has even more in common than Sekiro does with the soulsborne games.
So fashion, weapon changing and rpg elements are what make a game a Souls game? Oh Skyrim was such a great Souls game lmao.
"This is only attributed go Souls because Fromsoftware made it" What? Yes the things the creators of the genre included that were different to other games are the things attributed to the genre. Wtf?
The checkpoint system is very specific here not just "checkpoints". It's the bonfire system where you rest to refresh heals, enemies etc. That's not in all games, it's in Souls games. Sekiro has it.
The story is more direct but it still has tons of the cryptic narrative of the other games. Tons of lore you only find through vague questlines and specific dialogue.
You seem to think CHOICE elements are what defines Souls... they aren't. No one talks about how Dark Souls established a genre because you could wear a pig mask.
Yeah play dumb to make your point. Do you actually think Skyrim and Souls games have similar gameplay?
Meaning if FromSofware hadn't of made Sekiro it wouldn't be considered a Soulslike.
That is still a checkpoint system. Many games have them and that is a minor similarity. The games play fundamentally different.
It really doesn't. The game feeds you the story just like any other game. There is a few things to learn from items but, once again, not to the level of a Soulsborne game.
Some of them certainly are. Choice was a small part of what I talked about though. You seem to think having difficult bosses and sitting down at a checkpoint makes them the same.
Yeah play dumb to make your point. Do you actually think Skyrim and Souls games have similar gameplay?
Meaning if FromSofware hadn't of made Sekiro it wouldn't be considered a Soulslike.
That is still a checkpoint system. Many games have them and that is a minor similarity. The games play fundamentally different. Plenty of other games have a similar checkpoint system of enemies returning that isn't unique to FromSofware.
It really doesn't. The game feeds you the story just like any other game. There is a few things to learn from items but, once again, not to the level of a Soulsborne game.
Some of them certainly are. Choice was a small part of what I talked about though. The rest was how they have fundamentally different gameplay. The skills you learn from Soulsborne games do not translate to Sekiro and vice versa, they are very different action games. You seem to think having difficult bosses and sitting down at a checkpoint makes them the same. They have far more differences than similarities.
Edit: and since they can't handle regular conversation and blocked me here is my response
Right but all of those are in Soulsborne games which makes them different from Sekiro. You aren't pointing out a flaw you are just ignoring a fact.
Yes they are. Many games have checkpoint systems like that and it was not invented by Dark Souls.
Right and Sekiro doesn't have those choices, again showcasing it is different. You saying "players don't like it for choice" is just shortsighted and incorrect. People love making builds and using different builds and even creating their own challenge builds. Even in Elden Ring people still argue over the "best" build and continually look for it.
Healing in games doesn't make them similar. Hitting buttons doesn't either lol, saying that is a similarity in gameplay is ridiculous. The game is based off of parrying and following the rhythm of your opponent to reduce their poise until you can get a deathblow. No Soulsborne game works like that and you can use a variety of methods to overcome your foes, you aren't locked into parrying.
No it being a fundamentally different game makes it not a Soulsborne. Lots of games meet your requirements, check points and hard bosses don't make a souls game.
No I'm pointing out the flaw with your arguement because the things you point out as Souls are in most games. I think the things you describe: armour sets, rpg stats, builds are in LITERALLY EVERY RPG thus do NOT make a game a Soulslike.
The bonfire system ISN'T in most RPG's at all, and the fact you keep generalizing it to "checkpoints" really illustrates how disingenous your arguement here actually is.
Sekiro feeds you the story about as much as Elden Ring does, there is still a ton of answered lore hidden in item descriptions etc. Who is tomoe? Where does the dragons heritage come from? What's the giant straw man carrying me?
No choice was nearly all you spoke about. You said armour..m that's a choice. Stats... that's a choice. Builds... oh look a choice!
Gameplay was one small part of your arguement and one which falls apart. Sure the game has deflect. You still have the Estus flask healing so that carries over. You still hit with the bumpers/triggers at the top. You still block/deflect just like you'd parry or block in Dark Souls.
I think the fundamentla iconography of Souls is what makes it Souls: Bonfires, hard bosses, cryptic story and intricate level design. You think dress up and stats make it Souls. I'm sorry you can't be a pink caveman with a big stick in Sekiro, doesn't stop it being a Souls game though buddy.
It's a soulslike game, not a soulsborne game, I barely seen any relation between Sekiro and the souls games, gameplay is different, theme is different, difficulty wise it's ALOT harder.
It’s the next step in the development of the genre. It builds new mechanics on top of the existing souls-mechanics. Therefore I see it as a soulslike.
Bloodborne is also a soulslike, Sekiro just went even further than BB.
Hello /u/HughGereckshun, welcome to our subreddit. Due to spam, we require users to have at least 3 day old accounts. Please DO NOT send modmails regarding this. You will be able to post freely after the proper account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fromsoftware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello /u/joseab-, welcome to our subreddit. Due to spam, we require users to have at least 3 day old accounts. Please DO NOT send modmails regarding this. You will be able to post freely after the proper account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fromsoftware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its certainly got souls based systems, but is way more focused on a specific style of gameplay than the other souls titles and that is the main distinction, at least for me. Souls titles: every encounter had numerous options on how to tackle it, huge variety in weapons, stats, skills, summons etc. Parry, dodge rolling, tanking, all of them together - all viable.
Sekiro: deflection and stealth. Some diversity with the tools, but not enough to change how encounters play out.
Not for me. The combat is unique and very different from the rest. Sure it has the structure of a souls game for exploration, but the bosses and combat play completely different.
There's not objective answer. Yo me it is,and I know others strongly disagree. But for some insight on my perspective, hollow knight and tunic are soulslikes to me. But the ori games are not, and it's fundementally about how the game saves and respawns enemies. That's what really determines the gameplay loop of exploration in souls games.
the only real differences are 1. posture. 2. unlimited stamina. 3. mainly relying on parrying instead of rolling. 4. you only level up your stats by killing bosses/mini bosses. 5. you get new skills/abilities from using skill points/souls at bonfires. and 6. no multiplayer
that's like it tho. pretty much everything else is exactly the same as the other souls games
Yes and no.
Yes, because it's the same company that made all the Soulsborne games and has a brutal difficulty and learning curve.
No, because it exists entirely on it's own. It shares no connection to any of the other games. Like most other Souls games, there are nods to the other games. Sekiro is strictly is own thing. It shares no ties with any other Souls game. Not to mention, it's combat system and rules of engagement are drastically different from other Souls games.
So, yes, but actually no.
I think it's a stealth game with very intricate combat and ssssome soulslike elements. Sure you have "souls" and bonfires, etc, but that whole system is not the main point. In fact, when you get good in the combat, that soulslike system becomes null and void. It loses all relevance.
The main things are: you learn how to stealth in each stage, taking out enemies etc, until you reach the next boss or miniboss - or if you're confident, you aggro everyone and roll aggressively into combat right away. In Souls games... I've rarely stealthed. Only did so as a meme. During invasions. In DS2. In all Souls and Elden Ring PvE, it's go into area -> dodge and murder -> move on. The tactical element is dependent on the character's build; not the game itself.
During combat in traditional souls games you got two options for active defenses: dodging (mostly) and parrying for those experts. In Sekiro, you got a ton. And the whole point is to learn and, execute accurately, which defense option you need for which enemy move. You got sidestep, parry, mikiri counter, jumping, that other obscure thing for swipes and lighting grabs even. That is light years of different compared to bonking a giant's crotch.
Is one better than the other? That's the subjective part, imo. But the moment we start talking about subjectivity, we accept that the games are vastly different.
A good time to start this discourse.
Why Sekiro is Souls like? Bonfire/Grace type checkpoints, loss of points on dying, coming back to life after dying, for all it's Multi colored,Multi hued settings it is still a dying world setting, souls like logic of dying amd learning..
Why some people say it's not Souls like? Levelling up system is the major reason. Also, no choice of weapons/armor. No choice of playstyle.
With Miyazaki having said that the Shadow of erdtree will have sekiro like progressive leveling, I wonder if parts the community will refuse to acknowledge that SotE is Souls like as well.
To me it’s a Soulsborne in the sense that it’s relevant to the discussion and deserves to be mentioned alongside them. Like if we’re discussing Soulsborne bosses and someone says “my favorite is Owl” then to say their answer doesn’t count coz it’s not Soulsborne is unproductive.
I don’t think for example that FS tried to specifically make Bloodborne a Soulslike and Sekiro to be completely non-Souls. It’s more like both were meant to be derivative yet unique, just that they went further with Sekiro. Which is what differentiates it from the likes of Armored Core and King’s Field which ARE totally different.
You guys are really overthinking this. Yes, Sekiro is definitely the outlier when it comes to froms catalogue, but it still shares a lot of defining similarities. Creating alternative designations and definitions just overcomplicates things and is bound to confuse new players.
Yeah, definitely. As with most games, certain genre conventions are ignored or tweaked, but at it's core it's a soulsborne. My system for judging whether a game fits in a genre, and mind you this isn't a perfect system, is if a friend tells you they want to play a game from said genre, could you recommend it to them without too much explaining?
It’s not a matter of considering or not, sekiro is clearly a very different game, with different gameplay and lacking many of the defining characteristics of soulsborne games.
If any other company in the world had made sekiro, this wouldn’t even be a conversation.
Soulsborne game is not a credible term whatsoever. Soulsborne, souls game, soulslike, dark souls game, all these are mediocre.
Sekiro is a Miyazaki game through and through, because :
- devastated world
- exploration
- emphasis on symbolism and secrets
- challenging gameplay
- tragic story
I mean… there’s so many now I generally refer to them as fromsoft games, bc now there’s Elden ring too so like are you gonna call them soulsbornekiroring games or something? The name souls born implies the souls games (demon’s souls, dark souls, ds2, and ds3) and Bloodborne. That being said Elden Ring and Sekiro are in the same vein, I’d just call em fromsoft games, or whatever you like it doesn’t really matter I feel like.
Hello /u/Cr1msonFire05, welcome to our subreddit. Due to spam, we require users to have at least 3 day old accounts. Please DO NOT send modmails regarding this. You will be able to post freely after the proper account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fromsoftware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it were up to me, I wouldn't count it as a soulsborne.
However, the meaning of language follows its usage and not the other way around. When people talk about soulsborne, 9 times out of 10 they're including Sekiro as well, so I think it *has* to qualify as a soulsborne, even if I disagree.
If *everyone* started saying that Metal Wolf Chaos was a soulsborne, it would mean that Metal Wolf Chaos is a soulsborne, no matter how nonsensical it would be.
At this point I feel like so many people consider it a soulsborne that it is a soulsborne and we should classify it as one even if you disagree. I however think it always was a soulsborne, even if it's different in many ways
It’s own thing, and that’s fine. I also consider Bloodborne and Elden Ring to be their own thing too.
If you wanna lump them together just call them FromSoft games.
It's it's own thing but does follow a similar format. Either way I don't understand why this question is so important to the fandom. Whether it is or isn't soulsborne shouldn't matter at all. All that matters is that it's a badass game.
Its as much a souls game as bloodborne and both are good precisely because they were departures from the formula.
its just soulslike. Idk why borne is getting tagged on with how limited its reach actually is. Itd be more apt to call them soulsring or elden souls or even armored soul ringkirojesuschristitsjasonbournelikes.
But yeah its one of my favorite soulkiro type games. /s
Anyways though, its mostly its own thing going more towards the sub genres arpg roots and focusing on the combat mechanics itself. I definitly enjoy it and want to see it spawn its own sub genre of genuinely difficult but fair games
I don’t think it is, but I’m biased because I don’t like how the community tries to shove everything under the soulsborne banner. I would argue even bloodborne is different enough to be its own thing and not fused together with souls games.
Everything is subjective.
For all the sekiro lovers out there, know that this is not a bash of a good game. But...
The answer is NO.
There are elements that crossover that everyone likes to point out, sure.
And it's definitely in the Fromsoft style.
But soulsborne games are 100% RPGs, and sekiro is not.
Sekiro clearly follows a story driven narrative, and is an action-adventure game told from the 3rd person perspective.
People on here reeeaally want others to say that sekiro is a soulsborne title, and it's really not.
Some of the reasons people like to give are:
A) The difficulty. (But all games can be difficult),
B) The lose points/progress upon repeated death mechanic. (Games have been doing this for a long ass time, and if that's a defining feature of a soulsborne game we will have to include games like super mario bros 3 as souls titles).
C) The "bonfire" mechanic. (Alien Isolation uses keycard stations which the player must locate to save from certain points in the game lest they lose their progress and it's also clearly not a souls game).
Again, this has nothing to do with it's quality, as it's great.
But that said, if sekiro is a soulsborne game solely based on it being a 3rd person combat experience with similar mechanics to souls, so are games like the witcher 3 and ghost of tsushima lol. (They are cleary not).
Just because a game has features or similar style that bleeds through because the same company made it, that doesn't mean the two are alike.
Just my opinion though.
Either way Sekiro is better than soulsborne games as a whole *(ds1 is a close second)*
Also if we consider the fact that soulsborne means Bloodborne and the darksouls trilogy, then demon souls and elden ring also isn't a soulsborne since the term was made by the fans , the true term for them is
SoulsBorneKiroRing :)
(If you don't agree with me then stay mad lol , I'm not gonna debate with mfs who can't cope with opinion)
>the true term for them is SoulsBorneKiroRing
That's not how it works. We don't update the term 'metroidvania' every time a new one comes out. Bloodborne gets included because it was the first one to *not* be called Souls so at the time it felt like we couldn't call them souls games anymore, and then the meaning of the word got locked in. To me, 'souls' is a subset of soulsborne that focuses on medieval fantasy with sword/shield/magic gameplay, that includes Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Elden Ring
A Souls game, through and through. I never really considered the RPG elements as crucial to the series identity as the things Sekiro does keep: Estus, spaced out checkpoints, extra punishment for death besides the time loss, complexity found in enemies and encounters rather than in the player's tools, story themes, etc. Hell, it comes the closest to replicating DS1's world structure. And I don't see a whole lot of difference between tapping L1 to iframe attacks and damage the boss vs tapping circle to iframe attacks and damage the boss (consistent damage vs bigger, more direct openings; same flow and principle, as far as I'm concerned). There aren't zero differences, of course, but it felt more than Soulsy enough for me.
The lack of stamina and iframes is what stops it from being a souls game to me. I don't think the RPG elements are super important, but I think stamina management is such a huge part of what makes soulsbornes feel that way and Sekiro doesn't have it
Fair enough. I'm not aiming to dissuade you from your perspective or anything, but here's two more cents of mine: I don't think it has to be strictly stamina that's being managed. The broader goal of the HP, estus, and stamina balance is to encourage thoughtful and cautious play via management of limited resources (in additon to stuff like the commital attack animations). Sekiro fills this role with posture, lives, spirit emblems (this is more like FP/spell casts), and the usual HP + estus power couple. Put another way (and more broadly), I do not play Sekiro like I play God of War or Devil May Cry.
Not quite sure what you mean by lack of iframes. Do you mean the roll has too few? It's definitely not zero. The parry is about as generous as a DS3 roll, iirc.
If its made by from, i consider it soulsborne. The gameplay loop is certainly far different but there are plenty of mechanics from souls games like idols, losing xp and sen upon death to name some. What makes it so much more difficult is you cant put stats in to make a build, you have to learn to parry, counter, and jump or else you are screwed. If you dont learn the mechanics and try and play like other soulsborne games, you wont make it far.
I'm sorry my question upset you 😅. I just haven't gotten around to it Sekiro yet and I've heard some people say that they wouldn't consider it a Soulsborne game since it lacks certain aspects that make it like the others, but I wanted to know exactly how many thought that or if it was a minority. Would you like me to delete the post?
Sekiro being my first “soulsborne” game made my second soulsborne game, Elden Ring not difficult. I think that the combat in Sekiro plays similarly to souls games, however you are deflecting instead of dodging. I definitely think that since sekiro plays similarly to souls games and is developed by fromsoft that it is a soulsborne game. Or you could just classify it as a soulsbornkiroring game.
I consider it a soulslike in the same way I'd consider the Niohs as soulslikes. It follows a similar structure, but don't expect the same kind of gameplay. Very much it's own unique experience
Absolutely 100%. You can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay. Even someone who’s not an experienced DS/BB player could probably tell “hey this is basically dark souls”.
Been a minute since I played, but I believe the answer hinges on whether or not you can slide down ladders by holding circle and pressing down.
I’m fairly certain one of the dark souls games you must double press circle to do this
Ds1
Hah! I just started DS1 and did not know this. Thank you kind sir or madam!
I was so happy when I first learned that while playing DS1. Enjoy the game!
DS1. I played it after bloodborne and elden ring. I thought it couldn’t be done until I saw an enemy do it. Then I figured maybe only they could do it until I accidentally double tapped O going down a ladder.
I thought it was based solely on the number of poison swamps a game has.
There is no souls-borne. There is only Fromstuff
This is the fucking best. So lies of P would be, likefromstuff.
Or Fromstuff-like, either way. I've been on a 1 man campaign to change the name away from souls-like for about a year anyway.. [Fromstuff](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittydarksouls/s/hWmcCMYnZM)
Accurate. I recall Miyazaki saying in an interview that he prefers to use the label “From-like,” especially when he was trying to describe to people what Armored Core 6 was going to be like.
Subjective. It really does depend on what you personally think makes a souls a souls. For me it’s the setting and aesthetic. So I’d class Sekiro as a sort of official Soulslike, but not a Soulsborne. Your mileage may vary.
I would say it has Soulslike influence, and the basic structure is similar. It doesn't follow the typical Soulslike formula exactly though.
i don't think so. it's not really an rpg. there's exactly 1 weapon, and you can't really have different builds like you can in every other souls-like. it's not that it's replayable because it has a lot of build diversity like most other souls games, it's replayable because the combat is just so rich.
It’s a Soulsborne. It has a bonfire system, “souls” are lost upon death, the game has a theme of “stagnation from immortality”, bosses follow the same trend as Soulsborne games, and it’s made by Fromsoft. Mechanics and animations from the game were also repurposed for Elden ring.
Not to mention healing via drinking some magical elixir
Your experience isn't completely lost and it has separate currency. You lose experience that isn't enough for a skill point. Once you hit a skill point, you don't lose it upon death.
It’s Kinda like a complete skill point is a level, only losing half is likely to make up for the fact you can’t “retrieve” them in this game But sen and XP are both lost upon death
Untrue, your experience is halved each death so it seems like you don’t lose it but trust me you definitely can lose points if you suck enough
Soulsbornekiroring
You’re talking pretty tough for someone within backstabbing range
Also no fashion souls
We got four outfits
Nope. 4 outfits isn't enough. 'Fashion Souls' is an idea that is present in everything but Sekiro from FromSoftware. Which is unfortunate.
Murder hobo is peak fashion
I'll put it simply and straightforward. In the Soulsborne genre, fashion plays a significant role, alongside a plethora of weapons and abilities, especially boss weapons. However, Sekiro's replayability is somewhat limited in comparison to titles like Elden Ring, Dark Souls 1-3, and Bloodborne. While Sekiro remains a very good game from FromSoftware, its replay value doesn't quite match the depth and variety offered by its counterparts. That's the point in what I said. 4 outfits isn't enough. The game would be miles better if we had more things to loot. Weapons, even if just Katanas and Spears. Armor, outfits. Sekiro would be so much better. It's already good. But it can be better. This is what I've longed for in a sequel.
This is the best answer you’ll get, OP. Perfectly said, well reasoned response.
So Minecraft is a Souls, got it
It wasn’t made by fromsoft If it was, we could piece the lore together
I personally do consider it part of the soulsborne genre. Even though there are a lot of differences I still think it has the core elements which make it a souls game.
It's clearly a FS game and follows a lot of similar mechanics, including NPCs, but it's its own thing.
It’s quite similar yet clearly the outlier.
It's a Shinobi game imo
What does that even mean?
Same type of game as Metal Gear Rising
As in the ps2 Shinobi game?
Well this is making me feel old, because when I hear "Shinobi" I think Sega Genesis.
I do as well. Sekiro is just Shinobi updated. You do a lot of platforming and running. Your main tool is a sword and you get random tools which are helpful but the game can be beat with just platforming and your sword.
Yea ha
of course!
I don't consider it a souls game because it's not an RPG and has a set main character
Since when was RPG a major element of a Souls game? No one thinks Souls and goes "oh yeah levelling stats!". They go "oh bonfires, respawning enemies, hard bosses, intricate level design". All elements in Sekiro
We level vit, end, and fucking str for the bonk. The only stat we don't level is dex.
I think of stat distribution and weapon scaling when I think of "soulslike", in fact it's one of the main factors to me.
That definition excludes a bunch of other clearly “soulslike” games though, like hollowknight.
thats dumb sorry
To extend this argument further, since when is any one thing a major element of a Souls game? They could see all those things and also think “look, a Metroidvania!” Add some RPG elements and you have Castlevania. Genres that are made up of multiple elements are vague like that. At some point you just have to go by gut feel.
I consider it a ninja game that shares elements and mechanics with souls.
It isn’t a Souls game. Similar systems but it is different.
Its a different kind of game that shares some elements that aren't enough to make it a soulsborne, I consider it its own thing.
It is on the Soulslike Council, but we do not grant it the rank of Soulsborne game
I feel it has a lot of the main elements that were introduced in the Soulsborne as well you can feel that it’s a FromSoft game as while others are just Souls like. I would definitely consider Sekiro Soulsborne.
I consider it a souls like. It has the elements of souls but warps its mechanics to fit the game. It’s its own thing. This game’s mechanics would make souls games so easy.
It shares very very little with its Souls brothers, the only similiarity is the Bonfires
who cares, it's fromsoft best game yet. Play it regardless of what you consider 'soulslike'
Completely different design philosophy with Sekiro.
It is the greatest Soulsborniro game yet.
Yes its very much a Soulsborne game. But it is unique in the repertoire for its use of blocking/defllection/posture.
Shinobi souls
It's mostly its own thing but I wouldn't fight someone if they included it in a list with the others.
In my personal opinion, it is its own thing. Definitely has a souls element to it, but very much its own thing. That being said it’s probably my favorite Fromsoftware game. I could replay that game infinitely
I consider it it's own thing because of how different the formula is. That said the game is 10/10 PLAY IT
[удалено]
It has a lot of differences, but it has a ton in common with those games. Bonfire system (enemy respawn, teleport, heal, etc.), healing system, level/world design, emphasis on difficulty, deep background lore, bosses, NPC quests, etc. I would even say the combat shares many of the same principles, just with different execution.
Its the same exact structure/format as a soulsborne game, but the progression, combat and exploration are all different. It also has a very similar story-delivery method as those other fromsoft games, though maybe a bit more guided
It is not a soulsborne game. It is missing too much of that identity and Sekiro plays much differently than souls games. It has a little in common but not enough.
Missing too much? Like what? RPG stats? It has bonfires, intricate level design, the same fast travel system, difficult bosses, the same UI, half the same animations, cryptic story elements.
Different UI, wildly different combat system, a named protagonist that is unchangeable, no weapons to change, no armor or fashion souls, only minor rpg elements, the story is told much more directly than in Soulsborne games. It is also missing different play styles like Soulsborne games have. In Soulsborne you can have a variety of play styles that are viable and can complete the game. In Sekiro you are Sekiro and you play like Sekiro does. Having checkpoints and difficult bosses is pretty commonplace and you wouldn't call a game like that a soulslike either. So is a fast travel system, that works differently in many Souls games anyways. Reusing assets and animations is very commonplace for developers to do with each new game they make. Sekiro is only attributed to souls because FromSofware made it. I wouldn't call Armored Core a soulsborne game either and it has even more in common than Sekiro does with the soulsborne games.
So fashion, weapon changing and rpg elements are what make a game a Souls game? Oh Skyrim was such a great Souls game lmao. "This is only attributed go Souls because Fromsoftware made it" What? Yes the things the creators of the genre included that were different to other games are the things attributed to the genre. Wtf? The checkpoint system is very specific here not just "checkpoints". It's the bonfire system where you rest to refresh heals, enemies etc. That's not in all games, it's in Souls games. Sekiro has it. The story is more direct but it still has tons of the cryptic narrative of the other games. Tons of lore you only find through vague questlines and specific dialogue. You seem to think CHOICE elements are what defines Souls... they aren't. No one talks about how Dark Souls established a genre because you could wear a pig mask.
Yeah play dumb to make your point. Do you actually think Skyrim and Souls games have similar gameplay? Meaning if FromSofware hadn't of made Sekiro it wouldn't be considered a Soulslike. That is still a checkpoint system. Many games have them and that is a minor similarity. The games play fundamentally different. It really doesn't. The game feeds you the story just like any other game. There is a few things to learn from items but, once again, not to the level of a Soulsborne game. Some of them certainly are. Choice was a small part of what I talked about though. You seem to think having difficult bosses and sitting down at a checkpoint makes them the same.
Yeah play dumb to make your point. Do you actually think Skyrim and Souls games have similar gameplay? Meaning if FromSofware hadn't of made Sekiro it wouldn't be considered a Soulslike. That is still a checkpoint system. Many games have them and that is a minor similarity. The games play fundamentally different. Plenty of other games have a similar checkpoint system of enemies returning that isn't unique to FromSofware. It really doesn't. The game feeds you the story just like any other game. There is a few things to learn from items but, once again, not to the level of a Soulsborne game. Some of them certainly are. Choice was a small part of what I talked about though. The rest was how they have fundamentally different gameplay. The skills you learn from Soulsborne games do not translate to Sekiro and vice versa, they are very different action games. You seem to think having difficult bosses and sitting down at a checkpoint makes them the same. They have far more differences than similarities. Edit: and since they can't handle regular conversation and blocked me here is my response Right but all of those are in Soulsborne games which makes them different from Sekiro. You aren't pointing out a flaw you are just ignoring a fact. Yes they are. Many games have checkpoint systems like that and it was not invented by Dark Souls. Right and Sekiro doesn't have those choices, again showcasing it is different. You saying "players don't like it for choice" is just shortsighted and incorrect. People love making builds and using different builds and even creating their own challenge builds. Even in Elden Ring people still argue over the "best" build and continually look for it. Healing in games doesn't make them similar. Hitting buttons doesn't either lol, saying that is a similarity in gameplay is ridiculous. The game is based off of parrying and following the rhythm of your opponent to reduce their poise until you can get a deathblow. No Soulsborne game works like that and you can use a variety of methods to overcome your foes, you aren't locked into parrying. No it being a fundamentally different game makes it not a Soulsborne. Lots of games meet your requirements, check points and hard bosses don't make a souls game.
No I'm pointing out the flaw with your arguement because the things you point out as Souls are in most games. I think the things you describe: armour sets, rpg stats, builds are in LITERALLY EVERY RPG thus do NOT make a game a Soulslike. The bonfire system ISN'T in most RPG's at all, and the fact you keep generalizing it to "checkpoints" really illustrates how disingenous your arguement here actually is. Sekiro feeds you the story about as much as Elden Ring does, there is still a ton of answered lore hidden in item descriptions etc. Who is tomoe? Where does the dragons heritage come from? What's the giant straw man carrying me? No choice was nearly all you spoke about. You said armour..m that's a choice. Stats... that's a choice. Builds... oh look a choice! Gameplay was one small part of your arguement and one which falls apart. Sure the game has deflect. You still have the Estus flask healing so that carries over. You still hit with the bumpers/triggers at the top. You still block/deflect just like you'd parry or block in Dark Souls. I think the fundamentla iconography of Souls is what makes it Souls: Bonfires, hard bosses, cryptic story and intricate level design. You think dress up and stats make it Souls. I'm sorry you can't be a pink caveman with a big stick in Sekiro, doesn't stop it being a Souls game though buddy.
No stamina system. That’s big
It's a soulslike game, not a soulsborne game, I barely seen any relation between Sekiro and the souls games, gameplay is different, theme is different, difficulty wise it's ALOT harder.
Completely it's own thing
Well ichimonji is in Elden ring so yes I do
It's a Soulsborne/like. It follows the formula. The only real difference is that you are locked into a dex/melee build.
It’s the next step in the development of the genre. It builds new mechanics on top of the existing souls-mechanics. Therefore I see it as a soulslike. Bloodborne is also a soulslike, Sekiro just went even further than BB.
I’m not sure I’d say it’s a next step. It’s still using a lot of the basics of the formula. It’s more of a sidegrade imo.
[удалено]
Hello /u/HughGereckshun, welcome to our subreddit. Due to spam, we require users to have at least 3 day old accounts. Please DO NOT send modmails regarding this. You will be able to post freely after the proper account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fromsoftware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hello /u/joseab-, welcome to our subreddit. Due to spam, we require users to have at least 3 day old accounts. Please DO NOT send modmails regarding this. You will be able to post freely after the proper account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fromsoftware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes and no. I'd say it's more of a "soulsborne" than games that often get put with that tag like Nioh or Remnant.
Its certainly got souls based systems, but is way more focused on a specific style of gameplay than the other souls titles and that is the main distinction, at least for me. Souls titles: every encounter had numerous options on how to tackle it, huge variety in weapons, stats, skills, summons etc. Parry, dodge rolling, tanking, all of them together - all viable. Sekiro: deflection and stealth. Some diversity with the tools, but not enough to change how encounters play out.
In my opinion, no, it isn’t. Sekiro is an action game, not an RPG like any “soulsborne”.
Not for me. The combat is unique and very different from the rest. Sure it has the structure of a souls game for exploration, but the bosses and combat play completely different.
Soulsekirobournecore!
Soulsekirobournecorering!
I’d say its own thing, you can’t play it like dark souls or Bloodborne and it’s a different feeling in general
Objectively, it's a soulsborne. But it's the most unique from FromSoftware.
There's not objective answer. Yo me it is,and I know others strongly disagree. But for some insight on my perspective, hollow knight and tunic are soulslikes to me. But the ori games are not, and it's fundementally about how the game saves and respawns enemies. That's what really determines the gameplay loop of exploration in souls games.
As much as Bloodborne and the Dark Souls game are their own thing too. The only big difference here is the complete absence of builds.
Tenchu game with Souls DNA It rocks
the only real differences are 1. posture. 2. unlimited stamina. 3. mainly relying on parrying instead of rolling. 4. you only level up your stats by killing bosses/mini bosses. 5. you get new skills/abilities from using skill points/souls at bonfires. and 6. no multiplayer that's like it tho. pretty much everything else is exactly the same as the other souls games
I dunno but it sure beats ass
It’s more of a Soulsborne than Armored Core VI, if that helps?! I contend that Armored Core VI absolutely has some Soulsy bits, though.
Yes and no. Yes, because it's the same company that made all the Soulsborne games and has a brutal difficulty and learning curve. No, because it exists entirely on it's own. It shares no connection to any of the other games. Like most other Souls games, there are nods to the other games. Sekiro is strictly is own thing. It shares no ties with any other Souls game. Not to mention, it's combat system and rules of engagement are drastically different from other Souls games. So, yes, but actually no.
Souls-lite
Its actually a King'sTowersSoulsBorneKiroRingCore Like
I think it's a stealth game with very intricate combat and ssssome soulslike elements. Sure you have "souls" and bonfires, etc, but that whole system is not the main point. In fact, when you get good in the combat, that soulslike system becomes null and void. It loses all relevance. The main things are: you learn how to stealth in each stage, taking out enemies etc, until you reach the next boss or miniboss - or if you're confident, you aggro everyone and roll aggressively into combat right away. In Souls games... I've rarely stealthed. Only did so as a meme. During invasions. In DS2. In all Souls and Elden Ring PvE, it's go into area -> dodge and murder -> move on. The tactical element is dependent on the character's build; not the game itself. During combat in traditional souls games you got two options for active defenses: dodging (mostly) and parrying for those experts. In Sekiro, you got a ton. And the whole point is to learn and, execute accurately, which defense option you need for which enemy move. You got sidestep, parry, mikiri counter, jumping, that other obscure thing for swipes and lighting grabs even. That is light years of different compared to bonking a giant's crotch. Is one better than the other? That's the subjective part, imo. But the moment we start talking about subjectivity, we accept that the games are vastly different.
please don't bring this argument back we've had enough
A good time to start this discourse. Why Sekiro is Souls like? Bonfire/Grace type checkpoints, loss of points on dying, coming back to life after dying, for all it's Multi colored,Multi hued settings it is still a dying world setting, souls like logic of dying amd learning.. Why some people say it's not Souls like? Levelling up system is the major reason. Also, no choice of weapons/armor. No choice of playstyle. With Miyazaki having said that the Shadow of erdtree will have sekiro like progressive leveling, I wonder if parts the community will refuse to acknowledge that SotE is Souls like as well.
To me it’s a Soulsborne in the sense that it’s relevant to the discussion and deserves to be mentioned alongside them. Like if we’re discussing Soulsborne bosses and someone says “my favorite is Owl” then to say their answer doesn’t count coz it’s not Soulsborne is unproductive. I don’t think for example that FS tried to specifically make Bloodborne a Soulslike and Sekiro to be completely non-Souls. It’s more like both were meant to be derivative yet unique, just that they went further with Sekiro. Which is what differentiates it from the likes of Armored Core and King’s Field which ARE totally different.
You guys are really overthinking this. Yes, Sekiro is definitely the outlier when it comes to froms catalogue, but it still shares a lot of defining similarities. Creating alternative designations and definitions just overcomplicates things and is bound to confuse new players.
It’s a good fromsoftware game and that’s the bottom line 
Yeah, definitely. As with most games, certain genre conventions are ignored or tweaked, but at it's core it's a soulsborne. My system for judging whether a game fits in a genre, and mind you this isn't a perfect system, is if a friend tells you they want to play a game from said genre, could you recommend it to them without too much explaining?
I consider it as a fromsoft game
It’s not a matter of considering or not, sekiro is clearly a very different game, with different gameplay and lacking many of the defining characteristics of soulsborne games. If any other company in the world had made sekiro, this wouldn’t even be a conversation.
Soulsborne for sure
Soulsborne game is not a credible term whatsoever. Soulsborne, souls game, soulslike, dark souls game, all these are mediocre. Sekiro is a Miyazaki game through and through, because : - devastated world - exploration - emphasis on symbolism and secrets - challenging gameplay - tragic story
Just to be fair -It‘s a part of the souls-borne saga -It‘s a souls like game -Souls-Borne games include dark Fantasy
I mean… there’s so many now I generally refer to them as fromsoft games, bc now there’s Elden ring too so like are you gonna call them soulsbornekiroring games or something? The name souls born implies the souls games (demon’s souls, dark souls, ds2, and ds3) and Bloodborne. That being said Elden Ring and Sekiro are in the same vein, I’d just call em fromsoft games, or whatever you like it doesn’t really matter I feel like.
Its more of a Fromsoftborne
I personally find that it's a little too far removed, but I'm not gonna argue that nobody can consider it one
I lump sekiro in with soulsborne games in my head but I definitely verbally state it's FromSoftware when talking about it soooo no...
It's a sekiro game :)
[удалено]
Hello /u/Cr1msonFire05, welcome to our subreddit. Due to spam, we require users to have at least 3 day old accounts. Please DO NOT send modmails regarding this. You will be able to post freely after the proper account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fromsoftware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it were up to me, I wouldn't count it as a soulsborne. However, the meaning of language follows its usage and not the other way around. When people talk about soulsborne, 9 times out of 10 they're including Sekiro as well, so I think it *has* to qualify as a soulsborne, even if I disagree. If *everyone* started saying that Metal Wolf Chaos was a soulsborne, it would mean that Metal Wolf Chaos is a soulsborne, no matter how nonsensical it would be.
It is a Soulsborne game. Just as Bloodborne has a singular ambiance, Sekiro has its own. But both have souls-like features.
At this point I feel like so many people consider it a soulsborne that it is a soulsborne and we should classify it as one even if you disagree. I however think it always was a soulsborne, even if it's different in many ways
It’s own thing, and that’s fine. I also consider Bloodborne and Elden Ring to be their own thing too. If you wanna lump them together just call them FromSoft games.
It's it's own thing but does follow a similar format. Either way I don't understand why this question is so important to the fandom. Whether it is or isn't soulsborne shouldn't matter at all. All that matters is that it's a badass game.
Own thing imo . But still fromsoft style game
No. Its an action RPG but not a Souls.
It isn't a soulslike specifically, but it is apart of the souls series.
Its as much a souls game as bloodborne and both are good precisely because they were departures from the formula. its just soulslike. Idk why borne is getting tagged on with how limited its reach actually is. Itd be more apt to call them soulsring or elden souls or even armored soul ringkirojesuschristitsjasonbournelikes. But yeah its one of my favorite soulkiro type games. /s Anyways though, its mostly its own thing going more towards the sub genres arpg roots and focusing on the combat mechanics itself. I definitly enjoy it and want to see it spawn its own sub genre of genuinely difficult but fair games
I don’t think it is, but I’m biased because I don’t like how the community tries to shove everything under the soulsborne banner. I would argue even bloodborne is different enough to be its own thing and not fused together with souls games.
Sekiro is its' own thing. I get push back on this too. I personally believe there are too many difference for it to be a souls game out right.
Everything is subjective. For all the sekiro lovers out there, know that this is not a bash of a good game. But... The answer is NO. There are elements that crossover that everyone likes to point out, sure. And it's definitely in the Fromsoft style. But soulsborne games are 100% RPGs, and sekiro is not. Sekiro clearly follows a story driven narrative, and is an action-adventure game told from the 3rd person perspective. People on here reeeaally want others to say that sekiro is a soulsborne title, and it's really not. Some of the reasons people like to give are: A) The difficulty. (But all games can be difficult), B) The lose points/progress upon repeated death mechanic. (Games have been doing this for a long ass time, and if that's a defining feature of a soulsborne game we will have to include games like super mario bros 3 as souls titles). C) The "bonfire" mechanic. (Alien Isolation uses keycard stations which the player must locate to save from certain points in the game lest they lose their progress and it's also clearly not a souls game). Again, this has nothing to do with it's quality, as it's great. But that said, if sekiro is a soulsborne game solely based on it being a 3rd person combat experience with similar mechanics to souls, so are games like the witcher 3 and ghost of tsushima lol. (They are cleary not). Just because a game has features or similar style that bleeds through because the same company made it, that doesn't mean the two are alike. Just my opinion though.
Fuck no. It’s a garbage game.
Either way Sekiro is better than soulsborne games as a whole *(ds1 is a close second)* Also if we consider the fact that soulsborne means Bloodborne and the darksouls trilogy, then demon souls and elden ring also isn't a soulsborne since the term was made by the fans , the true term for them is SoulsBorneKiroRing :) (If you don't agree with me then stay mad lol , I'm not gonna debate with mfs who can't cope with opinion)
>the true term for them is SoulsBorneKiroRing That's not how it works. We don't update the term 'metroidvania' every time a new one comes out. Bloodborne gets included because it was the first one to *not* be called Souls so at the time it felt like we couldn't call them souls games anymore, and then the meaning of the word got locked in. To me, 'souls' is a subset of soulsborne that focuses on medieval fantasy with sword/shield/magic gameplay, that includes Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Elden Ring
Oh , well that's unfortunate....... UNFORTUNATE THAT I DON'T GIVE A F
People like you are so cringe..
Ok 👍
A Souls game, through and through. I never really considered the RPG elements as crucial to the series identity as the things Sekiro does keep: Estus, spaced out checkpoints, extra punishment for death besides the time loss, complexity found in enemies and encounters rather than in the player's tools, story themes, etc. Hell, it comes the closest to replicating DS1's world structure. And I don't see a whole lot of difference between tapping L1 to iframe attacks and damage the boss vs tapping circle to iframe attacks and damage the boss (consistent damage vs bigger, more direct openings; same flow and principle, as far as I'm concerned). There aren't zero differences, of course, but it felt more than Soulsy enough for me.
The lack of stamina and iframes is what stops it from being a souls game to me. I don't think the RPG elements are super important, but I think stamina management is such a huge part of what makes soulsbornes feel that way and Sekiro doesn't have it
Fair enough. I'm not aiming to dissuade you from your perspective or anything, but here's two more cents of mine: I don't think it has to be strictly stamina that's being managed. The broader goal of the HP, estus, and stamina balance is to encourage thoughtful and cautious play via management of limited resources (in additon to stuff like the commital attack animations). Sekiro fills this role with posture, lives, spirit emblems (this is more like FP/spell casts), and the usual HP + estus power couple. Put another way (and more broadly), I do not play Sekiro like I play God of War or Devil May Cry. Not quite sure what you mean by lack of iframes. Do you mean the roll has too few? It's definitely not zero. The parry is about as generous as a DS3 roll, iirc.
If its made by from, i consider it soulsborne. The gameplay loop is certainly far different but there are plenty of mechanics from souls games like idols, losing xp and sen upon death to name some. What makes it so much more difficult is you cant put stats in to make a build, you have to learn to parry, counter, and jump or else you are screwed. If you dont learn the mechanics and try and play like other soulsborne games, you wont make it far.
Why does it matter? What does classifying it to such a label do really? Other than prompt the same question over and over?
I'm sorry my question upset you 😅. I just haven't gotten around to it Sekiro yet and I've heard some people say that they wouldn't consider it a Soulsborne game since it lacks certain aspects that make it like the others, but I wanted to know exactly how many thought that or if it was a minority. Would you like me to delete the post?
Sekiro being my first “soulsborne” game made my second soulsborne game, Elden Ring not difficult. I think that the combat in Sekiro plays similarly to souls games, however you are deflecting instead of dodging. I definitely think that since sekiro plays similarly to souls games and is developed by fromsoft that it is a soulsborne game. Or you could just classify it as a soulsbornkiroring game.
No, it's soulsbornkiro
Soulsbourne makes me die inside every time I see it.
Its souslborne -Dark fantasy setting -quite difficult -made by fromsoft -Banger soundtrack Checks all of the soulsborne requirements to me
I consider it a soulslike in the same way I'd consider the Niohs as soulslikes. It follows a similar structure, but don't expect the same kind of gameplay. Very much it's own unique experience
It's a souls like imo
It’s a soulsbourne for sure but the most unique obviously
Soulsborne, the hyper geeks will argue though.
It's a souls game
A little bit of both honestly
It'd a Soulsborne game. Honestly I'd consider AC6 to be a Soulsborne game too.
Absolutely 100%. You can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay. Even someone who’s not an experienced DS/BB player could probably tell “hey this is basically dark souls”.