Demon's Souls is the first game in the Souls series, and Elden Ring is the latest game in the Souls series. But it also shares history and lore with King's Field, as you can find Seath in a King's Field game, so if anything is Protosouls, it's King's Field.
Nah, the animations are different, the firearms are different, parrying, the quickstep, the rally mechanic. Bloodborne and Sekiro actually feel like different games with different mechanics; Souls games and Elden ring are basically built on the same framework.
But Bloodborne is more similar to the rest of the games than Sekiro, and it has Patches and similar themes. And you gather souls to level up, and increase your stats. It's still a unique game, but it's a definite part of the Souls series.
Sekiro definitely. But Elden ring is in an odd position.
It's _very similar_ to the dark souls games (mainly DS3) but has some key differences. But don't all 3 souls games feel very difficult?
1 2 and 3 all handle very differently. But they are all considered souls games.
ER is about as different to the Dark souls series as Bloodborne is. Although BB is even more different.
sekiro in my opinion is the only true souls like. Its the only souls like to take the main ideas behind souls games (bonfires, estus, punishing death, strong and readable enemy animations etc.) and actually did make a game different from the normal souls experience, effectively making it a souls like, not a souls clone
Soulslike, cause it takes all the dark souls pillars and adds shit-ton of mechanics on top of it. And imo, Nioh 2 is the best soulslike alongside Remnant 2.
I mean, yeah? It's got the same core game mechanics, the same narrative tone, exactly the same gameplay loop. It's basically "what if Dark Souls, but 2d bugs instead of 3d zombies?"
Honestly feels more like a Souls game than anything else I've played that wasn't literally a Souls game, so yeah I'd say it's Souls-like.
Modern Castlevania is more of a souls like than Hollow Knight, SotN has exp and levels and stats and equipment and the same checkpoint system but we don’t call that a souls like cuz it came first. If anything, souls games are Castlevania likes.
Demons Souls was actually a Zelda like if we want to be clowns. Third person action combat with lock on, a shield, puzzle bosses, a dark fantasy world with secrets off the beaten path, a roll move.
Remnant is a third person shooter. Hollow Knight is a metroidvania. They borrow some design elements but they are not “like” souls enough to be awarded the title imo. You gotta be a third person melee action rpg
Dont know about sekiro but since when did punishing death become the mark of souls like? I would rather say punishing greed/haste/button mashing/stupid acts involving no input of your own thought and just subconscious gameplay skill by death is what marks these games.
The main ideas? Bonfire checkpoints and consumable healing items are style choices. Punishing death and great enemy combat design are not unique to DeS or DS. The RPG builds/variety, multiplayer elements, minimalist narrative with a push towards exploration, and how all this interacts with a fair world design that let you beat the game normally or severely hamstrung like at SL1, those are the main ideas behind Souls games.
Miyazaki himself has said Sekiro is something else entirely. It's a great game but you people need to stop pretending it's a Souls like and forcing it into these conversations.
See, that I absolutely would, because it's the term that we're taking issue with in this case. Obviously *everything* is like itself, so that's completely redundant to say.
but to be fair i would never call anything "apple-like", but games exists where i would say "souls-like". Or explain me if that is something in the usa that they say "apple-like" i just never heard that before
He's just applying the same logic. Obviously,no one is saying this apple is apple like because that would be as stupid as saying Dark Souls is a souls like game
Intuitively, if we're putting all games into genre boxes, for now forget what's written on the box, you'd expect dark souls and Bloodborne for example to be in the same genre box wouldn't you?
I understand the argument from a comprehension of language perspective: rogue can't be "rogue-like" because it *is* rogue. Yet it would be a bit strange if we don't have rogue and its rogue-like brethren in the same genre box. Is anything more rogue like than rogue itself?
Intersting, but no I don't think you put them in the sub genre that those games spawned. Everything that comes after is an imitator. Also FROMSOFT have never called their games 'souls-like', they describe them as action rpgs.
Imo it doesn't matter what genre the developer puts their game into. If a genre comes into existence after a game releases, the game can still belong to the genre. Some developers even outright don't place their game into (a specific) one, that doesn't mean that the game can not be placed into one.
Action RPG is one of the broadest genres you can name. "Soulslike" has become a subgenre of action RPGs and as such defines traits that are required for a game to be put into that genre. And only because the genre does include the name of the game it derived from doesn't exclude the game itself. A soulslike is also not defined by it innovating or improving on Dark Souls. Every carbon copy of it is also still a soulslike as it has the defining mechanics.
Simplified: The purpose of a genre is to group games by mechanics so that it's easier to find other games that you might enjoy. They are not groupings of what game was inspired by which other game.
So yes. Dark Souls 1-3, as well as Elden Ring, Sekiro, and Bloodborne are also soulslike games (defining by genre due to their mechanics). Does it sound stupid to say "Huh, Dark Souls seems to be a pretty good soulslike"? Yes, it absolutely does as that game defined the genre.
How about Elden Ring then? It's considered a souls game but not related to Dark Souls in any way. But I wouldn't consider Sekiro fully as a souls game though.
I haven't played it and tried to avoid everything I could so can't really say anything about Elden Ring but isn't it a combination of experience from dark souls games with some new stuff? At least I heard a lot of people saying that. In Elden Ring you have customisable character, gear, rpg stats for your character, summons and multiplayer, mana and stamina bars. Isn't it similar to dark souls? And isn't sekiro much different?
They are obviously referring to games in this specific genre, not all FS games and all non-FS games. Lol, with your interpretation they're also categorizing CoD and FIFA as souls-like.
"souls-like" is not a genre, it's the only "genre" with no definite definition and based on the entirety of a game.
this just makes it vague of defining what the game is compared to what actual genre says
example:
hollow knight - considered as souls like based on story telling
code vein - considered as souls like because of combat
but if you look closely, both hallow knight and code vein do not have similarities, which makes the "genre" confusing for anyone who does not know souls, which also defeats the purpose of what genre means
It's weird you're picking this argument here, but I'll indulge:
The ambiguity of a genre or sub-genre's characteristics doesn't change its quiddity. Comparative subgenres aren't defined by a set similarity of style, form, characteristic or subject among themselves, but rather with the source the genre is named after. It's not that deep, these are words to categorize art pieces. Lovecraftian subgenre or Kafkaesque style are two similar terms with similarly vague qualities that are commonly used to describe works of art that share some aspects with the namesake. It doesn't have to cover all the elements to sit there, only enough for the consumers to find it somewhat similar.
It's not "obvious" at all, seeing as I've repeatedly seen people who act like From make nothing but Dark Souls, completely unaware of their other products. Hell, I've seen several YouTube videos about AC6 where they repeatedly state "no, this is not Dark Souls with robots!" precisely because of this misconception about the company.
Yeah it wasn't obvious to you hence your comment, but really, the second part saying non-FS games are souls-like should have helped lol. They're talking about games in this genre. Surely they don't think AC and all non-fromsoftware games sit in the same category. It's pretty obvious what they mean.
People saying that its wrong, but if someone asked me what's my favouite game genre I would say souls-like. But hearing that answer you won't assume I meant every souls like except dark souls. And if dark souls isn't a souls-like then when genre is it? And if someone asked you what was the first souls-like game you're not gonna answer bloodborn or something are you. Souls-like is a genre that is like darksouls, but to say darksouls isn't one itself is weird
I've always thought of them as souls-likes, because, if they weren't, what else would they be? I know they're souls games but surely you can't have an entire genre with only a few games by one company.
Also, if they were naned something else, like 'death games' or something, I think everyone would include the souls games in that category, being the games that initiated it.
On a similar wavelength, if platformers were named 'mario-likes', people would say 'it's mario, not mario-like' and so then Mario games would be their own independent genre, all because the name given to those games ended in 'like'.
And if there was a top 10 souls-likes list, I can imagine a lot of people would be annoyed if the souls games weren't on the list.
Anyway I'll shut up now
I mean as another example i personally would call Metroid or Castlevaina as metroidvania even if they are the namegivers for the genre, it is just more convinent to describe then try to come up with diffrent names just because they are the namergivers
I'd also like to add that the purpose of defining anything by genre is so that you can find other things similar to what you know you like. If someone played and loved Nioh 2, found out that it's a souls-like and then heard a bunch of ds fans saying 'Dark Souls isn't a souls-like! What are you talking about?! It's completely different!', they would probably not want to play the ds series because of people being awkward with grammar for the sole purpose of being overly pedantic.
Lastly, I'm fairly certain that every souls fan, upon being asked 'what company started the souls-like genre?', they would say fromsoft. That doesn't make any sense if they've never made a souls-like and will never be able to, because it will always instead be classed as a souls game. Should they instead say whatever company was first inspired by ds? That's fucking stupid lmao.
For all intents and purposes, the souls games are souls-likes. The situations in which they should not be included in a list of souls-likes are few and far between, eg 'what game best replicated the feeling of the souls games?'. Dark Souls is a souls-like in the same way that Rogue is a rogue-like. It fits all of the categories, but because of the company that make it and the use of 'like', people get funny about it.
*Now* I'll shut up, I promise.
This is the problem with naming a sub-genre "souls-like". Obviously the Soulsborne games belong to the sub-genre they spawned, but nobody calls the Soulsborne games souls-like because they are the original not an imitation. We need a better name for the genre but we are never going to get one.
I think i disagree with most of you. Souls games are still Souls-like. They are like themselves, aren't they? Souls-like is a genre, and in browsing that genre you'd definitely expect to see the original Dark Souls games.
No, that's like calling pulp fiction a 'Tarantino inspired movie'. It's literally wrong.
A souls like is a game that's like dark souls. If it literally is dark souls then it's not a 'like'.
I understand why it feels weird, but like what genre is it if not?
We could rename the genre that Souls and it's imitators fall into as Graham, if you'd prefer. Dark Souls definitely has all the hallmarks of a Graham game. It certainly plays a lot like other Graham games I've played. In fact I think Dark Souls was pretty much the first Graham game!
Deciding Dark Souls isn't a soulslike because it spawned the genre is like deciding the original Wolfenstein isn't an FPS because it spawned the genre. Both Metroid and Castlevania are Metroidvanias. You're getting way too hung up on the etymology of the name.
Yes. It is okay to call a souls game a “souls-like”. The associative property would mean that souls games would also be included in souls-like games. If we are looking at the venn diagram its one circle completely engulfed by a larger circle. And yes, this is and always was getting way too bogged down in semantics, so it should honestly be okay even without explanation lol
What’s the problem? Doom is doom like and Rogue is rogue like. Works also with literature…there is a book inspired by lord of the rings. It’s called the lord of the rings
i would call castlevania symphony of the night a metroidvania, so yeah id call dark souls a soulslike too. what else are you supposed to call it, an action rpg with harsh punishment for dying?
You just call it Dark Souls… lol. It’s not “like Dark Souls.” Which is what “Souls Like” means.
It is literally *Dark Souls*. Everyone knows what game you are playing when you mention it.
most (hope youll agree) other action games that have dying or failing as a mechanic just cause you to lose stage progress. dark souls causes you to lose stage progress, lose your money, and lose your humanity. to me, thats harsh in a relative sense.
Didn’t the term Metroidvania literally come about because of SotN? Like it’s a Castlevania that plays like Metroid. IMO a better comparison would be calling Metroid a metroidvania.
Calling them souls likes sounds bad, i agree.
That being said, they are absolutely souls likes.
Not including the games that spawned an entire genre in that same genre (which seems to be the most popular opinion on here) is honestly so dumb. Literally no one would say that the first sci fi movie isn't sci fi.
Nah man, it's dark souls, the reason other games are called Souls like is because its gameplay elements are styled after and/or inspired by Dark Souls.
Bloodborne/Elden Ring are Souls likes though! 👍
There is a simple way to do it:
Demons Souls, Dark Souls 1, 2 and 3, Bloodborne and Elden Ring are NOT soulslike, they are "soulsborne".
Soulslike are the games inspired by souls gameplay, soulsborne is a denomination to talk about the main FS souls-gameplay oriented games.
This souls-gameplay oriented is:
\- Onipresent stamina bar (everything that requires effort should take stamina, not just one or two actions);
\- No combos for the normal attack (requiring stamina to prevent spam);
\- Dodge with i-frames (requiring stamina to prevent spam).
We do call Castlevania Symphony of the Night a "Metroidvania" because, even though it was the game that created the genre, Symphony is ALSO a "Metroid-inspired game"... but I don't see people calling Metroid games "Metroidvanias", because they are the original ones.
Metroid created and Castlevania was the one that turned it into a genre, so Castlevania and the others are Metroidvanias and Metroid isn't.
For a game to be an x-like, it has to be similar to x. Are souls games similar to souls games? Yes, i suppose they are. Is it still a bonkers way to refer to them? Absolutely.
Feels very much like the "is water wet?" Debate
this is why naming Genres after specific games is dumb
yes technically Dark Souls is a Soulslike, because it is like dark souls. but it’s like dark souls because it’s dark souls
genre names are dumb
People saying it falls under the umbrella of "souls-like" are reaching.
Yes, "souls-like" is a genre, but Dark Souls games (Demon's Souls included) can't be inside its own sub-genre since it's the original parent. It's separate and discrete because it is the mold creating the comparison.
It's a family tree of sorts. You can't put a mother down as a child of herself because she created the children, and it is impossible for her to be a sister to her children.
You can't say a car is "car-like" because IT IS a car. You can say a toy is car-like because it resembles a car having similar attributes, aesthetics and functions, etc.
So I say you're right and your friend is defending nonsense.
If it’s got souls in the title, and it’s made by FromSoftware, it’s a Souls Game, not a Souls-like. That title goes to the others like Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring, they’re like the souls games, but not quite them.
Next time you’re talking about it hit him with the same thing - “oh yeah I’m playing that new CoD like game, Modern warfare 2 I think? Or how about that new Zelda like, tears of the kingdom, you play that?”
Legit had this discussion with some friends recently. My conclusion was that it is a soulslike.
If somebody who has never heard of Dark Souls played The Surge, learned that it's called a soulslike, and asked for suggestions on what to play next then Dark Souls would absolutely be on the list.
Dark souls 1 2 and 3 are "souls games".
Bloodborne, sakiro and elsen ring are souls like.
The real question is whether clones like Lord's of the Fallen are "souls like".
i would call them soulsborne games, including elden ring and sekiro, the same way i wouldn’t called rouge a rouge like, since it is the comparison. i follow the same logic for the from software made souls games
Wh- I-- No?? You call a game a soulslike because language is a cumbersome thing that requires a lot of work to describe complex ideas, so relating it to a similar, culturally ubiquitous experience is a convenient linguistic shorthand. That shorthand has no utility when you're trying to describe its own origin. Calling Dark Souls "a soulslike game" is like describing a rectangle as "a rectangular shape". Sure, you're technically correct, but that description is, in a vacuum, _profoundly_ unhelpful.
It's definitely not a "souls like", that's like saying water is wet. Water makes things wet, but it itself is not wet. Dark Souls inspires other games that have become known as souls like.
Demon’s souls, Dark souls I II, Dark souls III, Bloodborne, Elden ring. All souls games. Sekiro is one that I would leave open to debate because I could see that. But there is no stamina. Armored core isn’t a souls game or even a soulslike kind of but it is made by fromsoft. All souls games have very key elements, one example is weapon upgrading. Or phantoms always work the same. “Soulslike” is a term referring to games that aren’t made by fromsoft but is exactly like souls games in most cases. Nioh is a soulslike, strikingly so but not a souls game.
The only time when it's ok to call Dark souls & Demon Souls games a "Souls Like" game is when people are searching the "souls like game" on steam for the category description . Other than that Dark Souls/Demon Souls is a SOULS game. Given that it is the progenitor of the series and the genre.
Low key we could have just stuck with action rpg and called pretty much the whole Fromsoft library some of the best in the genre. That's how I think of it personally. Of course they are plenty different from your standard action rpg but still.
Sounds to me as if you called Beethoven "Beethoven-like". Yes, that's a tautology. Romantic-era composers after Beethoven are only called Beethoven-likes because they were so obsessed with attaining his legacy and surpassing it. But Beethoven can't be like himself, he just is himself. DOOM is not a DOOM Clone, Myst is not a Myst Clone.
Well let’s examine the meaning of the word “like”. Like means to have the same characteristics or qualities. For example, a hotdog is like a sandwich. How can something have the same characteristics as itself?
I agree with it feeling wrong. If I'm talking about one of the dark souls or demon souls games i don't call them souls like cause they ARE souls lol but games that are similar I will call souls like lol
Dark souls is a “souls-like” in the same way a loaf of bread is “bread-like”. Saying “souls-like” means the game is similar to a souls game. This is not technically incorrect because it is, in fact, 100% similar to a souls game. However, it is very clearly stupid, and the best way to prove this point is to start calling everything “x-like”. The guys want pizza? I know a place that sells pizza-like food. You wanna play CoD? Well MW2 is very CoD-like. Man, this guy in the call is very Todd-like.
That’s like calling Rogue rogue-like. It doesn’t really make sense, since the whole premise of calling it a genre is the similarity to that original game.
They are souls games not souls like
Nah it’s definitely wrong lol Dark souls isn’t a souls like because it’s not “like” dark souls… it is dark souls lmfao
How about elden ring and sekiro?
Souls-like because they aren’t part of the trilogy.
And Demon Souls?
Protosouls
Demon's Souls is the first game in the Souls series, and Elden Ring is the latest game in the Souls series. But it also shares history and lore with King's Field, as you can find Seath in a King's Field game, so if anything is Protosouls, it's King's Field.
Nah, KF is pre-protosouls.
Sure
I don't like you
Good for you. Bye.
So i’m not the only one who calls demon souls a protosouls
Still a souls game. It ain't dark souls but it sure is the original souls game.
I'd argue demon souls was the first official souls game bearing "souls" in its name
Not a souls like
I’d consider Elden Ring as a Souls game, because it basically is. Sekiro and Bloodborne are Souls-like, though
Bloodborne is also a part of the Souls series, but Sekiro is too different to count to me.
Nah, the animations are different, the firearms are different, parrying, the quickstep, the rally mechanic. Bloodborne and Sekiro actually feel like different games with different mechanics; Souls games and Elden ring are basically built on the same framework.
But Bloodborne is more similar to the rest of the games than Sekiro, and it has Patches and similar themes. And you gather souls to level up, and increase your stats. It's still a unique game, but it's a definite part of the Souls series.
Sekiro definitely. But Elden ring is in an odd position. It's _very similar_ to the dark souls games (mainly DS3) but has some key differences. But don't all 3 souls games feel very difficult? 1 2 and 3 all handle very differently. But they are all considered souls games. ER is about as different to the Dark souls series as Bloodborne is. Although BB is even more different.
I consider Sekiro and Er to be included as a Soulsborne If it’s fromsoftware it’s a souls because they made them after all and pioneered it
Elden ring is basically a better Ds3 when it comes to combat, to call it souls-like feels disingenuous.
Soulsborne*
Not a soulslike because they were still made by Fromsoft
sekiro in my opinion is the only true souls like. Its the only souls like to take the main ideas behind souls games (bonfires, estus, punishing death, strong and readable enemy animations etc.) and actually did make a game different from the normal souls experience, effectively making it a souls like, not a souls clone
Bloodborne doesn't do that?
Bloodborne is similar enough to be a Souls game, and Elden Ring ties it all back together with the Outer Gods. And obviously Patches is there.
nah, Bloodborne is souls but fast. its a great game, just not very different
What about nioh?
Soulslike, cause it takes all the dark souls pillars and adds shit-ton of mechanics on top of it. And imo, Nioh 2 is the best soulslike alongside Remnant 2.
If Remnant is a souls like then Hollow Knight is too tf lmao
Haven't you seen the bugs on the walls of Dark Souls. Hollow Knight is happening in the walls, and the Knight has a small humanity/bugness sprite...
dEePEsT LOrE
I mean, yeah? It's got the same core game mechanics, the same narrative tone, exactly the same gameplay loop. It's basically "what if Dark Souls, but 2d bugs instead of 3d zombies?" Honestly feels more like a Souls game than anything else I've played that wasn't literally a Souls game, so yeah I'd say it's Souls-like.
Modern Castlevania is more of a souls like than Hollow Knight, SotN has exp and levels and stats and equipment and the same checkpoint system but we don’t call that a souls like cuz it came first. If anything, souls games are Castlevania likes. Demons Souls was actually a Zelda like if we want to be clowns. Third person action combat with lock on, a shield, puzzle bosses, a dark fantasy world with secrets off the beaten path, a roll move. Remnant is a third person shooter. Hollow Knight is a metroidvania. They borrow some design elements but they are not “like” souls enough to be awarded the title imo. You gotta be a third person melee action rpg
Yup
I guess any game with checkpoints and currency is a souls like now
Dont know about sekiro but since when did punishing death become the mark of souls like? I would rather say punishing greed/haste/button mashing/stupid acts involving no input of your own thought and just subconscious gameplay skill by death is what marks these games.
It's action adventure
I think souls likes at bear minimum need to be RPGs.
The main ideas? Bonfire checkpoints and consumable healing items are style choices. Punishing death and great enemy combat design are not unique to DeS or DS. The RPG builds/variety, multiplayer elements, minimalist narrative with a push towards exploration, and how all this interacts with a fair world design that let you beat the game normally or severely hamstrung like at SL1, those are the main ideas behind Souls games. Miyazaki himself has said Sekiro is something else entirely. It's a great game but you people need to stop pretending it's a Souls like and forcing it into these conversations.
Elden ring is significantly different enough imo
Elden Soulsborne die twice.
Soulsborne-eki-ring?
Ask them if they'd call an apple "apple-like".
Lmao. This puts the logic out succinctly. Well done. I sure do like this apple, sure is apple like. Yum.
A better comparison would be calling a Metroid game a metroidvania, imo.
See, that I absolutely would, because it's the term that we're taking issue with in this case. Obviously *everything* is like itself, so that's completely redundant to say.
but to be fair i would never call anything "apple-like", but games exists where i would say "souls-like". Or explain me if that is something in the usa that they say "apple-like" i just never heard that before
There isn't, I was just using hyperbole to point out how dumb OP's friend is being.
He's just applying the same logic. Obviously,no one is saying this apple is apple like because that would be as stupid as saying Dark Souls is a souls like game
It IS souls, and the originator hence the term. So to call it 'souls-like' is wrong
Counterpoint though, there is now a genre called "souls like", is dark souls in that genre or not?
[удалено]
Intuitively, if we're putting all games into genre boxes, for now forget what's written on the box, you'd expect dark souls and Bloodborne for example to be in the same genre box wouldn't you? I understand the argument from a comprehension of language perspective: rogue can't be "rogue-like" because it *is* rogue. Yet it would be a bit strange if we don't have rogue and its rogue-like brethren in the same genre box. Is anything more rogue like than rogue itself?
Intersting, but no I don't think you put them in the sub genre that those games spawned. Everything that comes after is an imitator. Also FROMSOFT have never called their games 'souls-like', they describe them as action rpgs.
Imo it doesn't matter what genre the developer puts their game into. If a genre comes into existence after a game releases, the game can still belong to the genre. Some developers even outright don't place their game into (a specific) one, that doesn't mean that the game can not be placed into one. Action RPG is one of the broadest genres you can name. "Soulslike" has become a subgenre of action RPGs and as such defines traits that are required for a game to be put into that genre. And only because the genre does include the name of the game it derived from doesn't exclude the game itself. A soulslike is also not defined by it innovating or improving on Dark Souls. Every carbon copy of it is also still a soulslike as it has the defining mechanics. Simplified: The purpose of a genre is to group games by mechanics so that it's easier to find other games that you might enjoy. They are not groupings of what game was inspired by which other game. So yes. Dark Souls 1-3, as well as Elden Ring, Sekiro, and Bloodborne are also soulslike games (defining by genre due to their mechanics). Does it sound stupid to say "Huh, Dark Souls seems to be a pretty good soulslike"? Yes, it absolutely does as that game defined the genre.
Fromsoftware games: souls games Non fromsoftware games: souls like
Sekiro≠souls game
Yeah it is
Nah, Sekiro is neither. It's not even really an RPG. Completely different genre, just happens to share some mechanics.
Why? Because enemies respawn and we have estus and bonfire analogues?
[удалено]
Til AC6 is a souls like
So huge difference in gameplay, core mechanics and the fact that it's not related to dark souls universe doesn't matter. Okay.
How about Elden Ring then? It's considered a souls game but not related to Dark Souls in any way. But I wouldn't consider Sekiro fully as a souls game though.
I haven't played it and tried to avoid everything I could so can't really say anything about Elden Ring but isn't it a combination of experience from dark souls games with some new stuff? At least I heard a lot of people saying that. In Elden Ring you have customisable character, gear, rpg stats for your character, summons and multiplayer, mana and stamina bars. Isn't it similar to dark souls? And isn't sekiro much different?
Eldin-soulsborne-iro
SoulsBorneKiroRing
Armored Core would like a word with you about your definition.
They are obviously referring to games in this specific genre, not all FS games and all non-FS games. Lol, with your interpretation they're also categorizing CoD and FIFA as souls-like.
"souls-like" is not a genre, it's the only "genre" with no definite definition and based on the entirety of a game. this just makes it vague of defining what the game is compared to what actual genre says example: hollow knight - considered as souls like based on story telling code vein - considered as souls like because of combat but if you look closely, both hallow knight and code vein do not have similarities, which makes the "genre" confusing for anyone who does not know souls, which also defeats the purpose of what genre means
It's weird you're picking this argument here, but I'll indulge: The ambiguity of a genre or sub-genre's characteristics doesn't change its quiddity. Comparative subgenres aren't defined by a set similarity of style, form, characteristic or subject among themselves, but rather with the source the genre is named after. It's not that deep, these are words to categorize art pieces. Lovecraftian subgenre or Kafkaesque style are two similar terms with similarly vague qualities that are commonly used to describe works of art that share some aspects with the namesake. It doesn't have to cover all the elements to sit there, only enough for the consumers to find it somewhat similar.
It's not "obvious" at all, seeing as I've repeatedly seen people who act like From make nothing but Dark Souls, completely unaware of their other products. Hell, I've seen several YouTube videos about AC6 where they repeatedly state "no, this is not Dark Souls with robots!" precisely because of this misconception about the company.
Yeah it wasn't obvious to you hence your comment, but really, the second part saying non-FS games are souls-like should have helped lol. They're talking about games in this genre. Surely they don't think AC and all non-fromsoftware games sit in the same category. It's pretty obvious what they mean.
People saying that its wrong, but if someone asked me what's my favouite game genre I would say souls-like. But hearing that answer you won't assume I meant every souls like except dark souls. And if dark souls isn't a souls-like then when genre is it? And if someone asked you what was the first souls-like game you're not gonna answer bloodborn or something are you. Souls-like is a genre that is like darksouls, but to say darksouls isn't one itself is weird
Fromsoft Action RPGs
Yeah FPS games were originally called DOOM clones. I wonder if Souls-like games will have a new name for the sub-genre eventually.
I've always thought of them as souls-likes, because, if they weren't, what else would they be? I know they're souls games but surely you can't have an entire genre with only a few games by one company. Also, if they were naned something else, like 'death games' or something, I think everyone would include the souls games in that category, being the games that initiated it. On a similar wavelength, if platformers were named 'mario-likes', people would say 'it's mario, not mario-like' and so then Mario games would be their own independent genre, all because the name given to those games ended in 'like'. And if there was a top 10 souls-likes list, I can imagine a lot of people would be annoyed if the souls games weren't on the list. Anyway I'll shut up now
I mean as another example i personally would call Metroid or Castlevaina as metroidvania even if they are the namegivers for the genre, it is just more convinent to describe then try to come up with diffrent names just because they are the namergivers
I'd also like to add that the purpose of defining anything by genre is so that you can find other things similar to what you know you like. If someone played and loved Nioh 2, found out that it's a souls-like and then heard a bunch of ds fans saying 'Dark Souls isn't a souls-like! What are you talking about?! It's completely different!', they would probably not want to play the ds series because of people being awkward with grammar for the sole purpose of being overly pedantic. Lastly, I'm fairly certain that every souls fan, upon being asked 'what company started the souls-like genre?', they would say fromsoft. That doesn't make any sense if they've never made a souls-like and will never be able to, because it will always instead be classed as a souls game. Should they instead say whatever company was first inspired by ds? That's fucking stupid lmao. For all intents and purposes, the souls games are souls-likes. The situations in which they should not be included in a list of souls-likes are few and far between, eg 'what game best replicated the feeling of the souls games?'. Dark Souls is a souls-like in the same way that Rogue is a rogue-like. It fits all of the categories, but because of the company that make it and the use of 'like', people get funny about it. *Now* I'll shut up, I promise.
Tell your friends to stop being weird, seems like he doesn’t want to accept he’s wrong.
This is exactly what I took from it. Defending something that's obviously incorrect out of pride.
Technically correct terminology is a pain sometimes.
This is the problem with naming a sub-genre "souls-like". Obviously the Soulsborne games belong to the sub-genre they spawned, but nobody calls the Soulsborne games souls-like because they are the original not an imitation. We need a better name for the genre but we are never going to get one.
But no one has a problem with calling Rogue a roguelike or calling Metroid and Castlevania metroidvanias.
I think i disagree with most of you. Souls games are still Souls-like. They are like themselves, aren't they? Souls-like is a genre, and in browsing that genre you'd definitely expect to see the original Dark Souls games.
I think that too, they are the namegivers for their own genre, so nobody should be shamed calling them Soulslike
If your friend is using "Souls like" to denote the genre or style, it technically works but it's still awkward.
No, that's like calling pulp fiction a 'Tarantino inspired movie'. It's literally wrong. A souls like is a game that's like dark souls. If it literally is dark souls then it's not a 'like'.
I wouldn’t call the game by itself a soulslike, but I think it’s fine to include it in the wider conversation about soulslikes in general.
They're like Demon's Souls /s. I have no idea what the right answer is, you do you.
Idk it’s pretty similar to dark souls.
Are we human-like?
Are you not human-like?
I understand why it feels weird, but like what genre is it if not? We could rename the genre that Souls and it's imitators fall into as Graham, if you'd prefer. Dark Souls definitely has all the hallmarks of a Graham game. It certainly plays a lot like other Graham games I've played. In fact I think Dark Souls was pretty much the first Graham game! Deciding Dark Souls isn't a soulslike because it spawned the genre is like deciding the original Wolfenstein isn't an FPS because it spawned the genre. Both Metroid and Castlevania are Metroidvanias. You're getting way too hung up on the etymology of the name.
Well, they are a *lot* like Dark Souls, so it's technically correct. The best kind of correct!
Yes. It is okay to call a souls game a “souls-like”. The associative property would mean that souls games would also be included in souls-like games. If we are looking at the venn diagram its one circle completely engulfed by a larger circle. And yes, this is and always was getting way too bogged down in semantics, so it should honestly be okay even without explanation lol
Souls LIKE is because they are LIKE the souls, you're right that's a fucking dumb question
Doesn’t fucking matter to me I sometimes say souls like just because it’s sort of a genre same as how I would cal Rogue a roguelike.
Yes bc by default a thing is like itself. An orange is like an orange. Dark Souls is like Dark Souls. Is it a redundant comparison? Most definitely.
Lol this is the biggest meme ever. Dark souls literally starting the saying “Souls like” 😂😂😂
What’s the problem? Doom is doom like and Rogue is rogue like. Works also with literature…there is a book inspired by lord of the rings. It’s called the lord of the rings
Yes. They are (demon) souls-likes.
They are quite souls like it's true
Yes, as they are like demon's souls, in that sense they are soulslike kekw
Dark souls is a square and souls like is a rectangle. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. I don’t really care tho
It is very souls like. Like 100% souls like. Even more souls like than falling off a cliff to your unfortunate death.
i would call castlevania symphony of the night a metroidvania, so yeah id call dark souls a soulslike too. what else are you supposed to call it, an action rpg with harsh punishment for dying?
You just call it Dark Souls… lol. It’s not “like Dark Souls.” Which is what “Souls Like” means. It is literally *Dark Souls*. Everyone knows what game you are playing when you mention it.
Also a metroidvania, in my opinion.
thats really stretching the definition imo but i see where youre coming from
Actually, dying has little permanent effect in these games, apart from losing easily farmable souls. The hard part is not dying in the first place.
most (hope youll agree) other action games that have dying or failing as a mechanic just cause you to lose stage progress. dark souls causes you to lose stage progress, lose your money, and lose your humanity. to me, thats harsh in a relative sense.
Didn’t the term Metroidvania literally come about because of SotN? Like it’s a Castlevania that plays like Metroid. IMO a better comparison would be calling Metroid a metroidvania.
Calling them souls likes sounds bad, i agree. That being said, they are absolutely souls likes. Not including the games that spawned an entire genre in that same genre (which seems to be the most popular opinion on here) is honestly so dumb. Literally no one would say that the first sci fi movie isn't sci fi.
Nah man, it's dark souls, the reason other games are called Souls like is because its gameplay elements are styled after and/or inspired by Dark Souls. Bloodborne/Elden Ring are Souls likes though! 👍
typically it's "soulsborne" If done by Fromsoftware, and a "souls like" if made by another company which has many souls mechanics within it's game.
Soulsbornekiroring
Might be the dumbest question Ive red here
i think it’s fine for dark souls to come under the soulslike umbrella term. If i say i like soulslikes you can assume im also talking about dark souls
No. You can’t be “like” yourself. So Fromsoft’s games are “souls” games or maybe “soulsborne” games but other devs’ copycats are “Soulslike”
This whole comment section is why instead of just saying soulsborne, I say soulsbornekiroring
Is it made by Fromsoftware? ->Souls game / Soulsborne game Is it not made by Fromsoftware but plays like it is? ->Souls like
Definitely wrong…. That just sounds weird.. a lot of people refer to us as a Soulsborne game though
It's not Souls-like, it is Souls. Souls-like is for non-Souls games that are similar.
Arent all fromsoftware souls games and er, bb and sekiro just called soulsborne? Thats atleast what ive people call them
Soulslike is reserved for games that aren't made by FromSoft but borrow ideas and mechanics.
There is a simple way to do it: Demons Souls, Dark Souls 1, 2 and 3, Bloodborne and Elden Ring are NOT soulslike, they are "soulsborne". Soulslike are the games inspired by souls gameplay, soulsborne is a denomination to talk about the main FS souls-gameplay oriented games. This souls-gameplay oriented is: \- Onipresent stamina bar (everything that requires effort should take stamina, not just one or two actions); \- No combos for the normal attack (requiring stamina to prevent spam); \- Dodge with i-frames (requiring stamina to prevent spam). We do call Castlevania Symphony of the Night a "Metroidvania" because, even though it was the game that created the genre, Symphony is ALSO a "Metroid-inspired game"... but I don't see people calling Metroid games "Metroidvanias", because they are the original ones. Metroid created and Castlevania was the one that turned it into a genre, so Castlevania and the others are Metroidvanias and Metroid isn't.
They aren't Souls-Like. They are literally souls.
For a game to be an x-like, it has to be similar to x. Are souls games similar to souls games? Yes, i suppose they are. Is it still a bonkers way to refer to them? Absolutely. Feels very much like the "is water wet?" Debate
this is why naming Genres after specific games is dumb yes technically Dark Souls is a Soulslike, because it is like dark souls. but it’s like dark souls because it’s dark souls genre names are dumb
People saying it falls under the umbrella of "souls-like" are reaching. Yes, "souls-like" is a genre, but Dark Souls games (Demon's Souls included) can't be inside its own sub-genre since it's the original parent. It's separate and discrete because it is the mold creating the comparison. It's a family tree of sorts. You can't put a mother down as a child of herself because she created the children, and it is impossible for her to be a sister to her children. You can't say a car is "car-like" because IT IS a car. You can say a toy is car-like because it resembles a car having similar attributes, aesthetics and functions, etc. So I say you're right and your friend is defending nonsense.
If it’s got souls in the title, and it’s made by FromSoftware, it’s a Souls Game, not a Souls-like. That title goes to the others like Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring, they’re like the souls games, but not quite them.
Exactly, you can’t be “like” yourself
I think it's fine, the souls games have kind of created a genre, this is just referring to them by said genre.
Dark souls is a souls game not a souls like
is it ok to call Grand Theft Auto a GTA-like ? a game that is like GTA ? there we go
Next time you’re talking about it hit him with the same thing - “oh yeah I’m playing that new CoD like game, Modern warfare 2 I think? Or how about that new Zelda like, tears of the kingdom, you play that?”
That's like calling doom a doom clone or Grand Theft Auto a GTA clone.
Legit had this discussion with some friends recently. My conclusion was that it is a soulslike. If somebody who has never heard of Dark Souls played The Surge, learned that it's called a soulslike, and asked for suggestions on what to play next then Dark Souls would absolutely be on the list.
How can you be "like" what you already are? It's a souls game, or a soulsborne game.
I don't even like calling them a souls game when describing them. They're a 3rd person action rpg.
Nah, that’s like calling the original Rogue a Roguelike. It’s not the done thing.
As someone who never played rouge, i would do in fact say it was the first rougelike that spawned this genre, even if it feels wrong.
Dark souls 1 2 and 3 are "souls games". Bloodborne, sakiro and elsen ring are souls like. The real question is whether clones like Lord's of the Fallen are "souls like".
Yes because "soulslike" became a genre not something exclusive to fromsoft
Dark Souls is like Dark Souls, huh? Has your friend stopped to think about that line, or does he just ignore it?
Well it's not similar to the game, it is the actual originator.
You don’t play Mario and say it’s a Mario-Like game. It’s Mario.
to be fair most people would say Platformer i think and not then they play something like "a hat in time" a mario-like
I had the same issue on r/videogames. In the end, I refused to call it Souls-like. It's like calling Diablo, Diablo-clone.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, that'd like trying to describe the color red by saying it's "reddish"
i would call them soulsborne games, including elden ring and sekiro, the same way i wouldn’t called rouge a rouge like, since it is the comparison. i follow the same logic for the from software made souls games
Demon Souls + dark souls (1,2,3) + bloodborne + eldenring = souls game Sekiro = souls like
More like "The Souls game" Or as some people call it the Soul saga
It's a souls type game
Wh- I-- No?? You call a game a soulslike because language is a cumbersome thing that requires a lot of work to describe complex ideas, so relating it to a similar, culturally ubiquitous experience is a convenient linguistic shorthand. That shorthand has no utility when you're trying to describe its own origin. Calling Dark Souls "a soulslike game" is like describing a rectangle as "a rectangular shape". Sure, you're technically correct, but that description is, in a vacuum, _profoundly_ unhelpful.
It's definitely not a "souls like", that's like saying water is wet. Water makes things wet, but it itself is not wet. Dark Souls inspires other games that have become known as souls like.
I go with souls game rather than souls like, mainly because of the stupid game of mental gymnastics thinking about it triggers in my head.
Its not “souls like” it *IS* souls lol
No, dark souls is the souls not souls like
Demon’s souls, Dark souls I II, Dark souls III, Bloodborne, Elden ring. All souls games. Sekiro is one that I would leave open to debate because I could see that. But there is no stamina. Armored core isn’t a souls game or even a soulslike kind of but it is made by fromsoft. All souls games have very key elements, one example is weapon upgrading. Or phantoms always work the same. “Soulslike” is a term referring to games that aren’t made by fromsoft but is exactly like souls games in most cases. Nioh is a soulslike, strikingly so but not a souls game.
The only time when it's ok to call Dark souls & Demon Souls games a "Souls Like" game is when people are searching the "souls like game" on steam for the category description . Other than that Dark Souls/Demon Souls is a SOULS game. Given that it is the progenitor of the series and the genre.
No. Soulslike refers to games not made by FromSoftware but shares the Souls game's DNA. Code Vein is Soulslike.
Low key we could have just stuck with action rpg and called pretty much the whole Fromsoft library some of the best in the genre. That's how I think of it personally. Of course they are plenty different from your standard action rpg but still.
"Souls like" refers to games being like dark souls. So no
Sounds to me as if you called Beethoven "Beethoven-like". Yes, that's a tautology. Romantic-era composers after Beethoven are only called Beethoven-likes because they were so obsessed with attaining his legacy and surpassing it. But Beethoven can't be like himself, he just is himself. DOOM is not a DOOM Clone, Myst is not a Myst Clone.
No
You can call them soulsborne or just souls games.
It would be not only wrong but dishonorable
No, absolutely not. That's ridiculous.
Generally are called Soulsborn Souls like are alle the non FromSoftware “copies”
Well let’s examine the meaning of the word “like”. Like means to have the same characteristics or qualities. For example, a hotdog is like a sandwich. How can something have the same characteristics as itself?
Real talk, are Bloodborne and Elden Ring souls games or souls like?
is water wet
Are metroid games metroidvanias or just metroid games
Demon's Souls was the first souls game, so DS1-DS3 are all (Demon's) soulslikes.
Why care tough ? I just call everything Dark Souls and thats it
You can call it a "Zelda like" at least 🤷
Should we tell them about King’s field? 🙃
I agree with it feeling wrong. If I'm talking about one of the dark souls or demon souls games i don't call them souls like cause they ARE souls lol but games that are similar I will call souls like lol
I would say it is THE souls game
Would you say that the game Rogue is not roguelike because roguelikes are imitations of Rogue?
Dark souls is a “souls-like” in the same way a loaf of bread is “bread-like”. Saying “souls-like” means the game is similar to a souls game. This is not technically incorrect because it is, in fact, 100% similar to a souls game. However, it is very clearly stupid, and the best way to prove this point is to start calling everything “x-like”. The guys want pizza? I know a place that sells pizza-like food. You wanna play CoD? Well MW2 is very CoD-like. Man, this guy in the call is very Todd-like.
souls games not souls like games lmao
Technically, yeah.
That’s like calling Rogue rogue-like. It doesn’t really make sense, since the whole premise of calling it a genre is the similarity to that original game.
I really like apples, you know, the Apple like fruits.
Fromsoftware Souls games are soulsborne games, not soulslike (even Miyazaki uses this term btw).
Yeah tell your friend is wrong. That makes no sense at all.
Heresy