What will we be changing the name of the "Soulsborne" genre to after Elden Ring comes out?
- Thread starter FlaygletheBagel
- Start date
But none of that matters. It's not a requirement that a feedback influences the namesake title(s). For ages nothing influenced the pinnacle Metroidvania titles, but that didn't stop them from being Metroidvania or new Metroidvania titles being released.
Soulsboring lmao
Edit: was ninja'd like an hour ago or so.
You, I like you.
Edit: was ninja'd like an hour ago or so.
You, I like you.
I don't think that precludes you from grouping the original games into the genre that they gave birth to. Nobody would argue that Doom isn't a first person shooter.
Yeah, that's fair. Soulslike+Soulsian is all you really need, I agree.
souls or souls-like
Soulslike which is what it always should have been
Soulsborne was always dumb and I'm baffled it caught on
Soulsborne was always dumb and I'm baffled it caught on
That will be reserved for the inevitable flurry of games imitating Stranger of Paradise!
Bloodborne fans make it really difficult to like Bloodborne.
No, bc SotN significantly changed up how Metroidvania titles could be designed. The combined titles are the pinnacle of the designs for the genre. Bloodborne on the other hand didn't really do a lot to change Souls-like titles from previous entries.
souls or souls-like
This, just souls style is fine. I know that long ass dumb name combining all of the games is sort of a joke, but overstayed it's welcome.
Doom is also different because for a long time the genre was know as "doom-clones". First person shooter is not a term that refers back to Doom, unlike souls-like. That's also my problem with "Souls-like" for the main series, because it's the same meaning, the term "souls-like" necessarily indicates something that was derived from Souls, and that is fine for the most part, but it makes no sense when talking about the actual Souls games Fromsoftware has been making this whole time.
It's not about requirements, it's just a an argument for why Souls-like as a term for the genre is not comparable to Metroidvania. But whatever, the point is that retroactively calling From's souls games "souls-likes" goes against the very meaning of something being a souls-like. They are The Souls games, souls-like are the other games influenced by the series.
I don't like genres that are named after specific games either. But we just haven't come up with a better term for Soulslike or Metroidvanias. That doesn't preclude their application though if it's the best we have. It doesn't make sense to single out those games to the exclusion of all their successors when talking about the genre as a whole.
It does make sense though. The From Souls games are first of all Action RPGs. They have their unique take on it, but it's what they are. It's why many people use "Souls" or "Soulsborne" when talking about the ones Fromsoftware makes, and leave "Souls-like" for the ones made by other developers.
And those "Souls-like" games don't even have to be action rpgs at all, further justifying the separation.
Yes, ultimately they are all action RPGs; but there is a distinct subgenre that has developed around Souls mechanics that other non-From developed games have embraced and extended. If there's utility to recognizing it as a subgenre then it makes no sense to distinguish the From games from the successors. If you don't want to talk about it as a subgenre at all then that's fine too, but i do feel that there's enough similarity between all those specific games versus other types of ARPGs to warrant it.
I'll probably just stick to "Another one of those."
Also, this. It's as superfluous as the vania in Metroidvania.
Why is the name Soulsborne even a thing? Bloodborne is basically a Souls game. I just go with Souls for From Software stuff and Souls-like for anything else
Last edited:
