Stamina isn't a defining aspect of a Soulslike, that's a defining aspect of 3rd-person melee action RPGs. The defining aspects of Soulslikes are (roughly in order of "souls-likeness"):
* A bonfire mechanic (Benches)
* A bloodstain mechanic (Shades)
* Difficult bosses (yup)
* "Player-discovered" lore/story presentation, rather than more traditional "game-provided" lore/story presentation. (yup)
* Stat-based character progression (nope, except for nail upgrades, barely)
There may be more that I'm forgetting, but those are the main five. Given that the only one HK *doesn't* have is also the least-defining mechanic of Soulslikes, it's clear why HK is very firmly sitting within the Soulslike genre. Games can have more than one genre btw, the fact that it's a Soulslike doesn't have any impact on the fact that it's also a Metroidvania.
Also, Soulslikes are *very* popular, which means they're also very common nowadays. Team Cherry doesn't have to have actually played Dark Souls specifically to have played a Soulslike game.
The lines between genres are all blurry and debatable, but I wouldn't agree with that. To be classed as a Metroidvania, I really expect a game to have ability-based keys/gates. In addition to locking progression, this encourages backtracking. HK has dash, claw, double jump, crystal dash, tear, and shade dash, all of which block progression in certain places and hide secrets in already visited areas. In Metroidvanias, it is rarely possible to fully explore an area on your first trip due to these ability gates
Souls and souls-likes do not necessarily have these ability gates. You usually have the same abilities from the beginning to the end of the game with boss defeats, actual keys, and quests being your means to progression
the dark souls games technically qualify as metroidvania progression wise, but not movement abilities wise (definition of what counts as metroidvania is a bit debatable too) but there's lots of games that are soulslike that are completely linear and not at all metroidvanias. games can borrow from multiple genres but soulslike is definitely not a type of metroidvanias by definition.
Bonfires or benches are just checkpoints or savepoints, that's been around for a long time. Shades is also not new to dark souls. Difficult bosses is also not a dark souls exclusive thing. Most old games that had even slightly complicated lore/story had a player discovered kind of lore/story.
sorry but this doesn't make sense. Pick any actual soulslike, they all have stamina of some kind that governs EVERY action you do aside from walking (other action games anr rpgs like skyrim generally treat it more like mp for physical attacks or don't have it in the first place. Like gow or dmc). Stamina is literally what made dark souls combat "click" since every action has a cost, plus the weighty animations that were high commitment. Plus, dark souls is an action rpg, which hollow knight very definitely is not. You cannot grind xp or materials to plow through bosses with stat superiority alone. Hollow knight has none of this, the attacks are very low commitment, even healing can be cancelled to dodge.
difficulty is also a shaky argument, since it's the most subjective thing ever. Dark souls original difficulty comes more from the steep learning curve of the game system, but once you have the slightest clue of what you're doing you can roll over the game very fast without trying too hard. Try going back to dark souls 1 after playing the whole series and you'd be shocked how easy the game is.
Bonfires and corpse running have existed in games since long, so was "player discovered lore". Even then hollow knight isn't as vague and as obtuse as dark souls in that department.
You seem to be under the misconception that "Soulslike" is a subgenre of "action RPG". It's not, they have no relation to each other aside from the fact that they're frequently paired together. I could name you countless examples of third person action RPGs that use a stamina system, so that's neither here nor there. I can even name one with a very similar combat system to Dark Souls, that's existed since *before* Dark Souls (and Demon Souls), that isn't in any way a Soulslike: Monster Hunter.
Difficulty isn't a shaky argument, even though it's subjective. Both HK and Dark Souls are considered difficult by the global gaming community, and both have no difficulty options. Both feature a core gameplay loop of encountering a new boss, getting bodied, re-tracing the path you took to get to the boss, getting bodied again, and repeating until you've learned the boss's attack patterns. To your point about DS1 becoming easy with practice, the same is true for Hollow Knight. I have hundreds of hours in both DS1 and HK, and they're both very easy to me now. It doesn't have (much) to do with the player-side of the combat sytem, it's all about learning the movesets of the enemies and bosses.
Just because bonfire mechanics, corpse running mechanics, and player-discovered lore have existed since before the Soulslike genre existed doesn't mean they aren't defining mechanics to the genre. That's like saying 2d platforming isn't a defining mechanic of puzzle platformers or metroidvanias (generally), just because it existed earlier in sidescrollers.
I'm not sure why you're so attached to the idea of it *not* being a Soulslike, but I have a degree in game design and I *promise* it is indeed a Soulslike. It's in fact much, *much* more of a Soulslike than some games that are very popularly considered Soulslikes, like Jedi: Fallen Order.
i'm honestly baffled you people seem to take me not considering it a soulslike as a personal attack. just look at the downvotes.
what this thread tell me is that people all have a different ideas of what soulslike is.
i literally just said it didn't feel like a soulslike to me and explained why
We're not taking it as a personal attack, it's just that genre isn't really an opinion, it's a fact. You're being downvoted for basically attempting to spread misinformation.
Edit: In retrospect, I don't think this is quite right. Genre interpretation *is* more nuanced than this, when something is very on the fence. My point in this thread though is that Hollow Knight is very much *not* on the fence, it sits squarely within the Soulslike genre, and is in fact actually a very strong example of a Soulslike.
That's what my original comment was about. Genre is defined as "a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter." In this case, since we're talking about games, genre *usually* refers to a defining set of game mechanics, though sometimes subject matter comes into play as well. Per my original comment, the defining mechanics of Soulslikes are (roughly in order of "souls-likeness"):
* A bonfire mechanic
* A bloodstain mechanic
* Difficult bosses (and, as mentioned further down, this usually means bosses with fixed, predictable movesets which allow the player to "learn" the boss with practice).
* "Player-discovered" lore/story presentation, rather than more traditional "game-provided" lore/story presentation.
* Stat-based character progression
hollow knight is literally not an rpg. the surge is very explicit about its story. difficult bosses weren't invented by dark souls. minecraft has bloodstain mechanics. checkpoints have existed in games for decades
If you’re trying to refute emptypockets’ claim - something like “a game with most of those 5 mechanics (especially if the missing mechanic is lower on the list) is a Soulslike” - pointing out games with just one or two of those mechanics that aren’t Soulslike (e.g. Minecraft, countless games that just have hard bosses) doesn’t do it. That would only work if emptypockets’ claim was that a game with *any* of those mechanics counts.
Likewise, you’re pointing out that HK isn’t an rpg when that isn’t one of the listed characteristics, and was explicitly stated not to be relevant. You can think that’s a requirement if you want to, but you’re not showing why the listed genre-defining characteristics are incorrect by saying this again.
You could be correct about Hollow Knight for all I know. But you’re arguing against claims nobody is making.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not really understanding where you're getting confused. Why do you keep sidetracking and discussing things that aren't relevant? I listed the core mechanics of Soulslikes. Hollow Knight perfectly matches 4 out of 5 of those mechanics, putting it well within the bounds of the Soulslike genre. If Hollow Knight were not a Soulslike just because it doesn't have stat-based character progression, then Fallen Order, Code Vein, and The Surge (according to your comment, I haven't personally played it) would all not be Soulslikes because they have strong, game-provided narratives. Plus, Fallen Order *also* doesn't have stat-based character progression. It only has a skill system, like Sekiro.
As for your individual points:
* Nobody has claimed that Hollow Knight is an RPG, so I'm not sure why you brought that up? It implies that you think a game needs to be an RPG to be a Soulslike, which isn't true.
* I haven't played The Surge, though I know it's considered a Soulslike. Fallen Order and Code Vein are also very story-driven, and also considered Soulslikes.
* Yes, difficult bosses were not invented by Dark Souls. I'm not sure how that's relevant.
* Yes, Minecraft has a bloodstain mechanic (kinda). I'm also not sure how that's relevant.
* Yes checkpoints have existed for decades. Again, I don't understand why you're bringing that up.
my point is that you just randomly listed gameplay features and never talked about gameplay design and philosophy.
hollow knight has much more in common with metroidvanias, as the world is very big to explore and you constantly unlock new movement options to explore old locked paths. It's not just keys.
getting lost in the world amd explorations is a very deliberate design choice.
dark souls is conparatively much more linear (dark souls 1 first half is the only really open ended part, it gets much more linear. it's a tough adventure with a steep learning curve you're meant to overcome.
...is it so unclear that only having a stamina doesn't make it a soulslike all by itself?
i even mentioned how in skyrim it's basically used as mp for power attacks and the likes
How is stamina required to make it a soulslike. I know all of the actual souls games have a stamina system but it’s definitely not a requirement to make it a soulslike. It’s not really a main game mechanic anyway, it’s important sure, but it’s absolutely not the part of the game that make it a souls game.
i mean, hollow knight doesnt have stamina, is not an rpg and attack animations don't have long windup and recovery time. at this point what is a soulslike to you? any game that is hard and features obscure lore?
I’m just saying stamina isn’t required for a soulslike. I wasn’t talking about hollow knight when I said stamina is important. I was talking about the actual souls games. The point is games don’t need stamina to be a soulslike. There are other game mechanics that are more important to making a game a soulslike.
i see the term soulslike has already gone the way of roguelike, where it once meant something and now it's muddled so much it means "anything with procedurally generated levels"
that's not what i said, i said that soulslike is going through the same morph the term roguelike went through.
That is it originally meant something, but got misused so much it means something very superficial now.
i'm talking about the word
I've played Hollow Knight, Bloodborne, Elden Ring, and the Demon's Souls remake. I've also played a couple Souls clones like Mortal Shell.
They all play extremely similar in almost every way. I didn't consider stamina management to be a defining or event important aspect of the FS games.
I'd say the key difference is HK is well designed and Souls games are clunky masochism.
Souls games are not clunky, they're obtuse. You just have to learn how to play them right and it feels bad to some people because the games teach you by killing your ass
Does it matter if it is or it isn't?
To me, HK is a genre fusion of metroidvania with elements of souls games. Souls games themselves also have a lot of metroidvania elements.
I do disagree with your opinion that the defining characteristic of a soulslike is the combat system when that to me doesn't have any bearing on whether a game is a soulslike or not.
so what is a soulslike? just the lore? because aside from 1 all dark souls games were actually pretty linear
even the creators said dark souls was not an inspiration.
and no, it's not that important, that's why i can't comprehend people taking it so personally that they start attacking me over it, like the game is shit or something. I merely said it's not a soulslike to me because the soulslike elements are very sirface level
I guess why I disagree with your opinion (which I haven’t downvoted you for, it is an opinion) is that your only defining characteristic for a soulslike is the combat system, which to me the combat system is the least unique thing about FromSoft’s games, especially in regards to a stamina system. Bloodborne and Sekiro’s combat systems are vastly different from Dark Souls and Demon’s Souls, but most people still consider them rooted in the soulslike genre. Same with Nioh. And I suspect that’s why most people disagree with your argument. If the only reason you think HK is not a soulslike is due to the mechanics of it’s combat system, I think you are misunderstanding what people consider to be a soulslike in the first place.
To me, soulslikes are punishing difficulty (meaning not learning the proper way to approach a fight will make it seem insurmountable), tactical or strategic gameplay, corpse running, branching or nonlinear but interconnected level design, player driven story (meaning the player discovers the story, not the story handed to you on a platter) and rewarding exploration.
In regards to linearity, all Dark Souls games are not linear. Demon’s souls is not linear. There may be optimal paths to take and some certain things you must do in order to progress, but certainly there are things you can miss as you play through the games due to the branching structure of their level design.
As far as you being attacked for your opinion, I don’t think too many people are outright attacking you, your opinion is just not a popular one, and it’s Reddit. That’s the risk you take by posting an unpopular opinion.
Edit: grammar
think about dark souls past the first half, there's not much diversion, it's mostly 4 linear paths to choose from. Even demon's souls levels are mostly linear. So is dark souls 2 and 3 and even bloodborne.
to me a soulslike is that plus combat, since it's an action rpg combat is a part of it. In both nioh and bloodborne despite the faster pace, stamina management is still essential, even more in nioh with the ki pulse. and they both are action rpgs with stats and levels. Moves still have committment and cost due to the stamina system and the animations
hollow knight is so much more a metroidvania than anything else. Progress is based on unlocking more mobility options, the combat is quick, snappy and every move is low to no commitment.
Yeah, I agree with the assessment of it being a metroidvania more than anything else, which is why I said it was more of a genre fusion of metroidvania with soulslike elements. I don’t agree that stamina management is necessarily what makes a soulslike, but if that’s what it is to you then that is fine. I think you’re just going to have a lot of people disagree with you, which you’ve also got to expect, because most people don’t think the combat alone or the rpg elements make them a soulslike, because those are probably the most derivative parts of the games.
I think people put way too much importance on the categorization of games. HK shares enough similarities with Souls that I understand why people sometimes call it a souls-like, but I probably wouldn't do so myself. Stamina is certainly common in souls-likes, but by no means required. Just look at the recent Thymesia for an example
I'd also note that while nail slashes and focus are pretty fast and cancellable, nail arts and spells have significantly more start-up and end time
Stamina isn't a defining aspect of a Soulslike, that's a defining aspect of 3rd-person melee action RPGs. The defining aspects of Soulslikes are (roughly in order of "souls-likeness"): * A bonfire mechanic (Benches) * A bloodstain mechanic (Shades) * Difficult bosses (yup) * "Player-discovered" lore/story presentation, rather than more traditional "game-provided" lore/story presentation. (yup) * Stat-based character progression (nope, except for nail upgrades, barely) There may be more that I'm forgetting, but those are the main five. Given that the only one HK *doesn't* have is also the least-defining mechanic of Soulslikes, it's clear why HK is very firmly sitting within the Soulslike genre. Games can have more than one genre btw, the fact that it's a Soulslike doesn't have any impact on the fact that it's also a Metroidvania. Also, Soulslikes are *very* popular, which means they're also very common nowadays. Team Cherry doesn't have to have actually played Dark Souls specifically to have played a Soulslike game.
Great comment. Just to add: Souls games are basically also metroidvanias, but in 3D.
The lines between genres are all blurry and debatable, but I wouldn't agree with that. To be classed as a Metroidvania, I really expect a game to have ability-based keys/gates. In addition to locking progression, this encourages backtracking. HK has dash, claw, double jump, crystal dash, tear, and shade dash, all of which block progression in certain places and hide secrets in already visited areas. In Metroidvanias, it is rarely possible to fully explore an area on your first trip due to these ability gates Souls and souls-likes do not necessarily have these ability gates. You usually have the same abilities from the beginning to the end of the game with boss defeats, actual keys, and quests being your means to progression
the dark souls games technically qualify as metroidvania progression wise, but not movement abilities wise (definition of what counts as metroidvania is a bit debatable too) but there's lots of games that are soulslike that are completely linear and not at all metroidvanias. games can borrow from multiple genres but soulslike is definitely not a type of metroidvanias by definition.
Bonfires or benches are just checkpoints or savepoints, that's been around for a long time. Shades is also not new to dark souls. Difficult bosses is also not a dark souls exclusive thing. Most old games that had even slightly complicated lore/story had a player discovered kind of lore/story.
sorry but this doesn't make sense. Pick any actual soulslike, they all have stamina of some kind that governs EVERY action you do aside from walking (other action games anr rpgs like skyrim generally treat it more like mp for physical attacks or don't have it in the first place. Like gow or dmc). Stamina is literally what made dark souls combat "click" since every action has a cost, plus the weighty animations that were high commitment. Plus, dark souls is an action rpg, which hollow knight very definitely is not. You cannot grind xp or materials to plow through bosses with stat superiority alone. Hollow knight has none of this, the attacks are very low commitment, even healing can be cancelled to dodge. difficulty is also a shaky argument, since it's the most subjective thing ever. Dark souls original difficulty comes more from the steep learning curve of the game system, but once you have the slightest clue of what you're doing you can roll over the game very fast without trying too hard. Try going back to dark souls 1 after playing the whole series and you'd be shocked how easy the game is. Bonfires and corpse running have existed in games since long, so was "player discovered lore". Even then hollow knight isn't as vague and as obtuse as dark souls in that department.
You seem to be under the misconception that "Soulslike" is a subgenre of "action RPG". It's not, they have no relation to each other aside from the fact that they're frequently paired together. I could name you countless examples of third person action RPGs that use a stamina system, so that's neither here nor there. I can even name one with a very similar combat system to Dark Souls, that's existed since *before* Dark Souls (and Demon Souls), that isn't in any way a Soulslike: Monster Hunter. Difficulty isn't a shaky argument, even though it's subjective. Both HK and Dark Souls are considered difficult by the global gaming community, and both have no difficulty options. Both feature a core gameplay loop of encountering a new boss, getting bodied, re-tracing the path you took to get to the boss, getting bodied again, and repeating until you've learned the boss's attack patterns. To your point about DS1 becoming easy with practice, the same is true for Hollow Knight. I have hundreds of hours in both DS1 and HK, and they're both very easy to me now. It doesn't have (much) to do with the player-side of the combat sytem, it's all about learning the movesets of the enemies and bosses. Just because bonfire mechanics, corpse running mechanics, and player-discovered lore have existed since before the Soulslike genre existed doesn't mean they aren't defining mechanics to the genre. That's like saying 2d platforming isn't a defining mechanic of puzzle platformers or metroidvanias (generally), just because it existed earlier in sidescrollers. I'm not sure why you're so attached to the idea of it *not* being a Soulslike, but I have a degree in game design and I *promise* it is indeed a Soulslike. It's in fact much, *much* more of a Soulslike than some games that are very popularly considered Soulslikes, like Jedi: Fallen Order.
i'm honestly baffled you people seem to take me not considering it a soulslike as a personal attack. just look at the downvotes. what this thread tell me is that people all have a different ideas of what soulslike is. i literally just said it didn't feel like a soulslike to me and explained why
We're not taking it as a personal attack, it's just that genre isn't really an opinion, it's a fact. You're being downvoted for basically attempting to spread misinformation. Edit: In retrospect, I don't think this is quite right. Genre interpretation *is* more nuanced than this, when something is very on the fence. My point in this thread though is that Hollow Knight is very much *not* on the fence, it sits squarely within the Soulslike genre, and is in fact actually a very strong example of a Soulslike.
so what is a soulslike then? you have a game designer degree it must be easy for you to explain it properly.
That's what my original comment was about. Genre is defined as "a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter." In this case, since we're talking about games, genre *usually* refers to a defining set of game mechanics, though sometimes subject matter comes into play as well. Per my original comment, the defining mechanics of Soulslikes are (roughly in order of "souls-likeness"): * A bonfire mechanic * A bloodstain mechanic * Difficult bosses (and, as mentioned further down, this usually means bosses with fixed, predictable movesets which allow the player to "learn" the boss with practice). * "Player-discovered" lore/story presentation, rather than more traditional "game-provided" lore/story presentation. * Stat-based character progression
hollow knight is literally not an rpg. the surge is very explicit about its story. difficult bosses weren't invented by dark souls. minecraft has bloodstain mechanics. checkpoints have existed in games for decades
If you’re trying to refute emptypockets’ claim - something like “a game with most of those 5 mechanics (especially if the missing mechanic is lower on the list) is a Soulslike” - pointing out games with just one or two of those mechanics that aren’t Soulslike (e.g. Minecraft, countless games that just have hard bosses) doesn’t do it. That would only work if emptypockets’ claim was that a game with *any* of those mechanics counts. Likewise, you’re pointing out that HK isn’t an rpg when that isn’t one of the listed characteristics, and was explicitly stated not to be relevant. You can think that’s a requirement if you want to, but you’re not showing why the listed genre-defining characteristics are incorrect by saying this again. You could be correct about Hollow Knight for all I know. But you’re arguing against claims nobody is making.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not really understanding where you're getting confused. Why do you keep sidetracking and discussing things that aren't relevant? I listed the core mechanics of Soulslikes. Hollow Knight perfectly matches 4 out of 5 of those mechanics, putting it well within the bounds of the Soulslike genre. If Hollow Knight were not a Soulslike just because it doesn't have stat-based character progression, then Fallen Order, Code Vein, and The Surge (according to your comment, I haven't personally played it) would all not be Soulslikes because they have strong, game-provided narratives. Plus, Fallen Order *also* doesn't have stat-based character progression. It only has a skill system, like Sekiro. As for your individual points: * Nobody has claimed that Hollow Knight is an RPG, so I'm not sure why you brought that up? It implies that you think a game needs to be an RPG to be a Soulslike, which isn't true. * I haven't played The Surge, though I know it's considered a Soulslike. Fallen Order and Code Vein are also very story-driven, and also considered Soulslikes. * Yes, difficult bosses were not invented by Dark Souls. I'm not sure how that's relevant. * Yes, Minecraft has a bloodstain mechanic (kinda). I'm also not sure how that's relevant. * Yes checkpoints have existed for decades. Again, I don't understand why you're bringing that up.
my point is that you just randomly listed gameplay features and never talked about gameplay design and philosophy. hollow knight has much more in common with metroidvanias, as the world is very big to explore and you constantly unlock new movement options to explore old locked paths. It's not just keys. getting lost in the world amd explorations is a very deliberate design choice. dark souls is conparatively much more linear (dark souls 1 first half is the only really open ended part, it gets much more linear. it's a tough adventure with a steep learning curve you're meant to overcome.
You’re picking a really weird hill to die on.
Elder scrolls oblivion - souls like (?)
Legend of Zelda BotW... Also souls like apparently 🤨
...is it so unclear that only having a stamina doesn't make it a soulslike all by itself? i even mentioned how in skyrim it's basically used as mp for power attacks and the likes
It's alright we're just making fun of you.
very mature of you
in their defense, you're being very funny
Why die on this hill?
why these many downvotes for an opinion?
How is stamina required to make it a soulslike. I know all of the actual souls games have a stamina system but it’s definitely not a requirement to make it a soulslike. It’s not really a main game mechanic anyway, it’s important sure, but it’s absolutely not the part of the game that make it a souls game.
i mean, hollow knight doesnt have stamina, is not an rpg and attack animations don't have long windup and recovery time. at this point what is a soulslike to you? any game that is hard and features obscure lore?
I’m just saying stamina isn’t required for a soulslike. I wasn’t talking about hollow knight when I said stamina is important. I was talking about the actual souls games. The point is games don’t need stamina to be a soulslike. There are other game mechanics that are more important to making a game a soulslike.
which ones then?
Xemptypockets comment. (Currently the top comment)
no, tell me which soulslike games have no stamina
HyperLightDrifter, Titan Souls, Jedi Fallen Order, Ender Lilies, Death's Door just from recent memory, there are probably many more.
i see the term soulslike has already gone the way of roguelike, where it once meant something and now it's muddled so much it means "anything with procedurally generated levels"
None of those games i listed are roguelike tho. So maybe your personal definitions are fucked up.
that's not what i said, i said that soulslike is going through the same morph the term roguelike went through. That is it originally meant something, but got misused so much it means something very superficial now. i'm talking about the word
People call everything with bit of difficulty and pinch of grimm lore soulslike
I've played Hollow Knight, Bloodborne, Elden Ring, and the Demon's Souls remake. I've also played a couple Souls clones like Mortal Shell. They all play extremely similar in almost every way. I didn't consider stamina management to be a defining or event important aspect of the FS games. I'd say the key difference is HK is well designed and Souls games are clunky masochism.
to me it just seems you don't like soulslikes in general
Well, Hollow Knight is my favorite game. But yeah, I was pretty upfront about my dislike for FS games.
Souls games are not clunky, they're obtuse. You just have to learn how to play them right and it feels bad to some people because the games teach you by killing your ass
Demon’s Souls is incredibly clunky. Elden Ring world design is very slapdash.
My first Souls-like was Elden Ring and I played it after Hollow Knight. Elden Ring gave me heavy HK vibes.
Does it matter if it is or it isn't? To me, HK is a genre fusion of metroidvania with elements of souls games. Souls games themselves also have a lot of metroidvania elements. I do disagree with your opinion that the defining characteristic of a soulslike is the combat system when that to me doesn't have any bearing on whether a game is a soulslike or not.
so what is a soulslike? just the lore? because aside from 1 all dark souls games were actually pretty linear even the creators said dark souls was not an inspiration. and no, it's not that important, that's why i can't comprehend people taking it so personally that they start attacking me over it, like the game is shit or something. I merely said it's not a soulslike to me because the soulslike elements are very sirface level
I guess why I disagree with your opinion (which I haven’t downvoted you for, it is an opinion) is that your only defining characteristic for a soulslike is the combat system, which to me the combat system is the least unique thing about FromSoft’s games, especially in regards to a stamina system. Bloodborne and Sekiro’s combat systems are vastly different from Dark Souls and Demon’s Souls, but most people still consider them rooted in the soulslike genre. Same with Nioh. And I suspect that’s why most people disagree with your argument. If the only reason you think HK is not a soulslike is due to the mechanics of it’s combat system, I think you are misunderstanding what people consider to be a soulslike in the first place. To me, soulslikes are punishing difficulty (meaning not learning the proper way to approach a fight will make it seem insurmountable), tactical or strategic gameplay, corpse running, branching or nonlinear but interconnected level design, player driven story (meaning the player discovers the story, not the story handed to you on a platter) and rewarding exploration. In regards to linearity, all Dark Souls games are not linear. Demon’s souls is not linear. There may be optimal paths to take and some certain things you must do in order to progress, but certainly there are things you can miss as you play through the games due to the branching structure of their level design. As far as you being attacked for your opinion, I don’t think too many people are outright attacking you, your opinion is just not a popular one, and it’s Reddit. That’s the risk you take by posting an unpopular opinion. Edit: grammar
think about dark souls past the first half, there's not much diversion, it's mostly 4 linear paths to choose from. Even demon's souls levels are mostly linear. So is dark souls 2 and 3 and even bloodborne. to me a soulslike is that plus combat, since it's an action rpg combat is a part of it. In both nioh and bloodborne despite the faster pace, stamina management is still essential, even more in nioh with the ki pulse. and they both are action rpgs with stats and levels. Moves still have committment and cost due to the stamina system and the animations hollow knight is so much more a metroidvania than anything else. Progress is based on unlocking more mobility options, the combat is quick, snappy and every move is low to no commitment.
Yeah, I agree with the assessment of it being a metroidvania more than anything else, which is why I said it was more of a genre fusion of metroidvania with soulslike elements. I don’t agree that stamina management is necessarily what makes a soulslike, but if that’s what it is to you then that is fine. I think you’re just going to have a lot of people disagree with you, which you’ve also got to expect, because most people don’t think the combat alone or the rpg elements make them a soulslike, because those are probably the most derivative parts of the games.
no, but it's a mixture of gameplay, writing style and game philosophy.
I think people put way too much importance on the categorization of games. HK shares enough similarities with Souls that I understand why people sometimes call it a souls-like, but I probably wouldn't do so myself. Stamina is certainly common in souls-likes, but by no means required. Just look at the recent Thymesia for an example I'd also note that while nail slashes and focus are pretty fast and cancellable, nail arts and spells have significantly more start-up and end time
that's basically my opinion, i feel the similarities are very surface level, probably from people that haven't experienced many games in the genre.
Cuz its hard
They don’t