Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why is it called "Soulsborne" and not "Blood Souls?"
- Thread starter TheSpaceBetween
- Start date
No, it's not, and yes, it is how people broadly use the phrase. Sorry to the five weirdos on this forum who make this distinction, but the overwhelming majority of people who use "Soulsborne" are doing so to (wrongly)refer to the genre, not the literal, actual games FROM has produced.
Last edited:
But I think people are perfectly willing to admit that.
Because that just is in fact the case, Bloodborne was married to the Souls series because it is so strikingly similar and obviously because it's so good, and it also came out a full year before Dark Souls 3.
But there's nuance to this goofy endless nerd discussion I'm happy to engage in. Bloodborne is far more similar to Dark Souls than Sekiro is similar to either of them. Elden Ring in turn is basically Giant Dark Souls and far more similar to that franchise than either Bloodborne or Sekiro. Elden Ring actually does more to encourage the usage of a specific term for From games than even Bloodborne does. But Elden Ring isn't actually a "Souls" game, as far as part of that actual franchise, so you need to make a distinction there. But you don't want to create some term that gets cumbersome.
So those are all just Souls games, plainly. They are a part of that umbrella which includes all From games of that ilk, with the only minor controversy there being Sekiro.
The ones from other devs who take influence in any sense - rough carbon copies like Mortal Shell or Lord of the Fallen or 2D games like Salt & Sanctuary - are Souls-likes. Bloodborne isn't a Souls-like, it is Souls.
I get Soulsborne but at this point without any follow up to Bloodborne the correct usage should be Souls-like.
TIL that From is so sacred that they can't have their games bundled with other games.
Person 1 - could you recommend me some Souls-like games?
Person 2 - rattles off many non-From games
Person 1 - but I heard From makes great games like this, you didn't mention a single one, why?
Person 2 - oh well you said Souls-like, those are Souls games
Person 1 - don't those play the same?
Person 2 - yes, but From makes these
Person 1 - From gets its own genre?
Person 2 - yes
Person 1 - does any other dev get that treatment?
Person 2 - did you miss me saying this is From?
Question, bc at this point this thread has become funny for me, if we had a Corpse Run RPG (CRRPG) genre would people be ok with lumping Dark Souls, Elden Ring, The Surge etc. together?
Person 1 - could you recommend me some Souls-like games?
Person 2 - rattles off many non-From games
Person 1 - but I heard From makes great games like this, you didn't mention a single one, why?
Person 2 - oh well you said Souls-like, those are Souls games
Person 1 - don't those play the same?
Person 2 - yes, but From makes these
Person 1 - From gets its own genre?
Person 2 - yes
Person 1 - does any other dev get that treatment?
Person 2 - did you miss me saying this is From?
Question, bc at this point this thread has become funny for me, if we had a Corpse Run RPG (CRRPG) genre would people be ok with lumping Dark Souls, Elden Ring, The Surge etc. together?
Last edited:
Like it or not Soulsborne is catchy. So its going to stay. It has little to do as to what exactly it means or what name to use.
I think pulling out an "actually Soulsborne is a term referring to the games FROM themselves made" is a way of implicitly admitting that this is about putting Bloodborne on a pedestal without actually admitting to it, because that reasoning has the air of attempting to simply classify FROM's recent output, while also eliding Sekiro and Elden Ring. Obviously, it is silly to just continuously shove more words onto the term, but then that begs why people arbitrarily decided Bloodborne was the cutoff, when "Soulsborne" is less descriptive than just "FROM games", in the sense that the former already is already outdated regarding FROM's releases. It's people wanting their favored entry to be reflected in the shorthand without having a good argument for why it should be included beyond "I like it". It certainly isn't as clear in intention as "Souls games" or "FROM games".
Bloodborne didn't meaningfully change the formula, not to the point of it needing a genre adjustment. It is a Souls games. Sekiro is a Souls game(debatable, but I'm not about to argue we need a subgenre for Sekiro, it's close enough to the Souls formula). Elden Ring is definitely a Souls game. There's nothing wrong with just calling them all "Souls-like", or just using "FROM games" to refer to the actual games. People will know what you mean in both cases.
Last edited:
This is where I stand too. Bloodborne follows the template close enough that the genre name doesn't need to be updated. Souls/Souls-like/etc does the trick.
Why is it not called Castletroid?
Because it sounds DUMB OP
DUMB
KF was not a good game, and also a very different game to Souls. There.
Because it sounds DUMB OP
DUMB
those weirdo dogs pretending King's Field was "actually good and really, the first Dark Souls", every time!
KF was not a good game, and also a very different game to Souls. There.
That'd break the natural order. What makes up the genre:
- fromsoft game that inspired the souls series
- fromsoft game that is inspired from the souls series
User warned: Platform wars
The way I see it all this is just passive-aggressive console warring: The "Soulsborne" name as a way to retake ownership of the genre that had been stolen from PS when Dark Souls released and triumphed everywhere becoming one of the most influential games of the generation, while DeS was stuck in a "hidden gem" status. When someone uses the "Soulsborne" name they're actually trying to say that Souls games have a special relationship with PS because that makes them feel like they have butterflies in their bellies.
I call them Soulsborne or Souls when it comes to From Soft Demon's Souls successors.
Others I call Souls like.
Don't care what others think lol this is what I define them as
Others I call Souls like.
Don't care what others think lol this is what I define them as
I believe that Soulsborne is a term that only exists because people feel Bloodborne is so special it demands extra notice. Otherwise, it's a silly term because Bloodborne in essence is just a Souls game. If both were franchises with multiple entries, I could see the portmanteau serving some use when talking about the Bloodborne and Dark Souls/Demon Souls series, but as it is now calling the FROM games "Soulsborne" makes as much sense as actually calling them "Soulsbornering".
Hell, maybe "Soulsring" will actually make more sense in the long run, because I can actually see FROM developing Elden Ring 2 before Bloodborne 2.
I just call them "Souls-games" or "Souls-likes"
Hell, maybe "Soulsring" will actually make more sense in the long run, because I can actually see FROM developing Elden Ring 2 before Bloodborne 2.
I just call them "Souls-games" or "Souls-likes"
Not only Souls was first, but, more importantly, Soulsborne sounds less generic than Blood Souls.
Exactly, but the damage is done and people will just continue using this awful term as a blanket description of the Souls styled games, which Bloodborne belongs to.
Both are completely redundant.
I call them Souls-likes. But even then for the most part I just call them action RPGs.
I don't call anything a Soulsborne's.
I don't call anything a Soulsborne's.
Ok this made me laugh
Blood Souls sounds like an actual game title and might be confusing. Soulsborne is dumb enough that it won;t be confused for a game title and you can also safely ignore anyone that uses the term.
I might be biased because Demon's Souls Remake and Bloodborne are my favorite Soulsborne games, but I don't think we need a genre with the term "like," in it. For that reason alone I prefer Soulsborne.
We already use "like" for rouge-like and that term is losing all meaning.
Seriously, it's crazy. I also really like the term Metroidvania and have never cared for most Metroid games including Super Metroid and the original Metroid.
I think "Souls-like" is lame and "Souls game," makes me assume we are taking about a From Software game since many people make Soulsborne games now, that doesn't make sense. (Ni-Oh, Code Vein, The Surge, etc)
Since Soulsborne includes 2 titles, in 2 different series, with different console exclusivity, born in different generations, it naturally makes me think it's a more inclusive term. I feel it's more apt to call the games mentioned above "Soulsborne," then "souls like." Almost disrespectful to use a "Souls," exclusive name for the genre because it feels like it has to be compared to the Souls franchise vs the genre. I might be crazy in this regard.
Anyway that's my thoughts.
We already use "like" for rouge-like and that term is losing all meaning.
Seriously, it's crazy. I also really like the term Metroidvania and have never cared for most Metroid games including Super Metroid and the original Metroid.
I think "Souls-like" is lame and "Souls game," makes me assume we are taking about a From Software game since many people make Soulsborne games now, that doesn't make sense. (Ni-Oh, Code Vein, The Surge, etc)
Since Soulsborne includes 2 titles, in 2 different series, with different console exclusivity, born in different generations, it naturally makes me think it's a more inclusive term. I feel it's more apt to call the games mentioned above "Soulsborne," then "souls like." Almost disrespectful to use a "Souls," exclusive name for the genre because it feels like it has to be compared to the Souls franchise vs the genre. I might be crazy in this regard.
Anyway that's my thoughts.
Last edited:
I have been doing this since the release of Bloodborne (before I even played any Soulsborne games) and no one bats an eye. We exist. LOL
Why would it vanish? I'll never stop using the term tbh. (reasons stated in the posts above)
Until someone invents a term that feels as inclusive to other franchises or doesn't have the word "like" or "game" in it, it's the best option we got.
Oh god, why core?
Sounds cringe to me, like someone trying to be edgy/hardcore.
Yep, just like Soulsborne...
You wanted a dumb term that would be a replacement for "like", so there you go.
Also, different subgenres of music use "core" in their names too.
Lol, I gave reasons why I think soulsborne is appropriate.
I didn't know about music genres using core, so that makes sense, but personally I would feel better with gaming using its own conventions vs borrowing from another medium. Fair enough tho.
Sounds like a game where you fight eunuchs in space. But kind of makes sense I suppose, if it's about having all of your powers removed early on.
I'm completely baffled that this kind of game is still in it's "Doom Clone" era. Where the genre is referred to with specific games even though there are plenty of them out there.
Soulslike sounds much better, especially when you consider that, despite how iconic it became and how universally loved it is, Bloodborne had little to no influence over soulslike games that came after it beyond maybe an aesthetic level.
But it's not really two different series though. Bloodborne is essentially a Dark Souls spin-off game (or a spiritual spin-off, if you'd like, since there's no real narrative connection), just like Dark Souls was a spiritual sequel to Demon's Souls. Bloodborne and Dark Souls share gameplay, developers and design ethos. If you'd show someone who didn't know anything about the two the games side-by-side they'd probably assume one is a sequel of the other and they wouldn't be totally wrong.
Soulsborne as a term makes very little sense compared to how a term like Metroidvania makes sense. Metroidvania exists as a term because games in that genre are base their gameplay on elements from Metroid and elements from Castlevania games (or at least, SotN and onwards), therefore 'Metroidvania' makes sense. Soulsborne would similarily imply that the games take equal inspiration from both Dark Souls (or Demon's Souls) and Bloodborne, which is, well, often not true (Dark Souls is usually mentioned, not Bloodborne) and even if that was the case that idea is nonsensical anyway considering Bloodborne and Dark/Demon's Souls are in essence the same type of game, with the exact same mechanics.
Again, the only way Soulsborne would make sense IMO is if it's only used to refer to Bloodborne and Dark Souls/Demon's Souls games and if they really were two distinct franchises. Like, if you would have three Bloodborne games and three Dark Souls games, you could feasibly refer to the collection as 'Soulsborne', but now it's just a stupid term that seems to only exist to put Bloodborne on a pedestal because there is and probably always will be only one Bloodborne game. Also, now it seems the term purposely omits Elden Ring and Sekiro (though I'd say Sekiro is actually different enough that it would warrant a separate term).
Souls-like meanwhile actually does make sense, because the games that people refer to as 'Souls-like' all have very clear mechanical connections to the Souls games (which Bloodborne is a part of).
Honestly though, you could also just call all those games Action RPG's and just sidestep the whole issue.
Google the term and look at how many outlets are using it. 🤦♂️
Why the hell would you call it Blood Souls when Demon's Souls and Dark Souls came out first?
Soulsborne just sounds better than Blood Souls anyway.
Now when Armored Core comes out and it is kinda Dark Soulish I guess we can change it all to Souls Core. However, Armored Core is an older series so maybe we can call the genre Armored Souls?
Soulsborne just sounds better than Blood Souls anyway.
Now when Armored Core comes out and it is kinda Dark Soulish I guess we can change it all to Souls Core. However, Armored Core is an older series so maybe we can call the genre Armored Souls?