this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
32 points (90.0% liked)

PC Gaming

8655 readers
733 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don’t think anyone would call Outward a Souls-like but apparently it is based on your definition

Also you can make a 2D RPG with currency experience and hardcore death, people won’t call it souls-like unless you’re rolling around a boss

Is RuneScape souls-like if you’re a hardcore? What about playing fallout as a hardcore?

[–] Sanctus 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A picture of games like Outward, which is hefty in Soulslikes

Steam disagrees with you.

You can, but specifically, soulslikes have currency experience, you drop it, and there are checkpoints that refresh the area. Its a specific gameplay loop and mechanical feel that makes it a soulslike. Yes, they are technically RPGs in the same way an IPA is also a beer. Idk what you're pulling at. I can frame Fallout as a survival horror. These bins we put games into are slightly arbitrary, but it means they contain systems that are alike and provide much of the same feel or user experience. Fallout does not provide the same user experience as dark souls. If you want to discuss in good faith I'm all for it. But you seemingly want a battle of wits, and have arrived unarmed.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Steam also thinks Valhiem and Grounded are Souls-like then, I think you can find a better argument

[–] Sanctus 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought I would give you a chance

But I did see you argue it’s not about story and not about losing progress when you die. that it is something that could be a live service

I just didn’t think it helped your argument of the opposite

[–] Sanctus 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was arguing for the opposite. A GaaS soulslike would be filled with garbage content and uninteresting bosses due to the development environment created by the unending stream of new "content". You can do it, but its not going to taste good.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

soulslikes have currency experience, you drop it, and there are checkpoints that refresh the area.

This isn’t the opposite

Those are all things independent of story and can be done in GaaS

due to the development environment created by the unending stream of new “content”.

That exists under all GaaS, it doesn’t change the genre. A game doesn’t have to be good to be a Souls-like

Darks Souls x Genshin is still a Souls-like so how do you figure it’s not?

[–] Sanctus 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then make it dude. Make that big pile of shit. Stress your devs out so they can't place all the tiny details in the environment that connect the boss to the area. Shit out new areas and bosses so fast they have no lore. Watch, as your game sells none because soulslike players aren't there just for the mechanics. Which, speaking of mechanics, they will be garbage too. Do it. I won't stop you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is your point here? Are you saying if I make a bad game then I’ll realize that only good games exist in a genre? Or are you upset that you realized genre is independent of quality?

[–] Sanctus 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is your point? I'm telling you a GaaS Soulslike will fail. You won't make any money with this idea because it lacks the things that make us keep coming back to FromSoft year after year. This isn't an FPS where razor thin attention spans must be constantly stimulated. Soulslike fans will scoff at constant microtransactions and skins and your stupid in game store. Wanna know how I know this? Because there is a soulslike GaaS! Wanna guess the fucken name? Since its such a good idea you should have heard of it, right? I will honestly wait for your reply to tell you the name.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you name a genre that you think GaaS is a good model for?

They just seem to make a ton

I can’t even name every non-GaaS souls like

[–] Sanctus 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The name of the game is Let It Die, btw.

Soulslikes are very popular. We watched the genre explode ourselves.

I don't like GaaS, you probably know that by now. But I don't see anything wrong with it giving free access to players. There are plenty of genres that are geat. Racing games, Shooters, sports games could probably do it easy.

But the soulslike genre in particular, the true legends of it, are not the GaaS games. Thats why FromSoft is still the biggest dog in soulslike, they know what the genre fans want. I guess Nioh 2 could be considered GaaS with its dailies and all. But I am more specifically referring to the cancerous revolving door of content type of GaaS. That would not serve a soulslike too well imo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Learning enemies is the core gameplay loop of a souls like.

Content churn is antithetical to everything the genre stands for.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t a stream of new enemies lean more into that core gameplay loop because you’re constantly learning rather than only when you first played?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Absolutely not.

Games as a service has never once resulted in high quality, well designed and polished content. The incentives are too broken. It is not capable of doing so. The model inherently removes the time required to do the bare minimum.

If every frame isn't carefully considered, it is not a souls like. The entire definition of the genre is built around deliberately approaching enemies that are extremely polished mechanically. There are some cases where the windows to act are small, but if you're frame perfect, you will always win. Games as a service effectively guarantees that there isn't time to ensure that consistent behavior, making it something entirely different.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People seem to like them

Insert any MMO

LoL/DOTA

Apex Legends

Fortnite

Your definition of “game has to be good to be in this genre” doesn’t hold water

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The defining trait of the genre is polished, deliberate combat.

Without that it's just a generic ARPG.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes ARPG is how the industry refers to Soulslike

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They very clearly are ARPGs. Not all ARPGs are Diablo clones with isometric graphics and big showy splash damage.

What distinguishes souls-likes from other ARPGs with similar gear and stat mechanics is the fact that your skill level is a core element of progression. Carefully designed enemies define a souls like. Calling a game without them a souls like is like calling a game without realistic physics a racing sim. It doesn't matter what the developer's intent is. If your physics are arcade-y, you're not a racing sim. You're just a racing game.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You don’t sound like you are coming from a developer background

If I pitch a game as an ARPG people are going to assume a soulslike - simple combat where you wait for an attack then parry/dodge and hit back then repeat until the fight is over

All that matters is the developer’s intent

In your example it is still a racing sim, just a bad one

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am, and you're wrong.

Developers can say anything they want. Genre is defined exclusively by players and how they experience the end result. Players label games.

If a developer makes Doom and calls it a JRPG, they're wrong regardless of what their design goals were.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s just a bad jrpg

Developers are the ones marketing it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Marketing has literally zero impact on what genre a game is.

Literally nothing but the gameplay can ever, under any circumstance, contribute to the discussion of what genre a game is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’ve never read the description on steam or seen an ad for a game that tells you what kind of game it is?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course I have. They just don't have any bearing in any context on what actual genre it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well good luck with your future pitches when you open up by saying the public is going to decide your genre