Thing is, thats not what attracts us. Its the way the world is alive. Lords finally did it too. The world is built to where it tells a story.
The Fire Giant is imprisoned by the kiln, left to be the last lone guard.
We arrive at the Temple of the Deep, only to hear i passing from an NPC that Aldritch isn’t there, when we arrive where he should be he is not there.
The weird singing beasts around Liurnia can have their song translated, and they sing of being persecuted by the “Golden Ones”.
These things are crafted with care, knowledge, and purpose. All of this is antithema to the quick bursting format of GaaS, where content is live for all of 3 months before becoming dead. It does not serve the art form, and you’ll be left with hollow shell of a game as devs don’t have time to breath life into each boss. You’ll also end up getting even more reskins and people already complain about that.
Mans has gone hollow, doesn’t think the atmosphere and lore are a major draw of FromSoft Souls games. So much so that nesrly every other Soulslike has tried to have a mind blowing story. Look at the genre dude, its painted in Miyazaki’s favorite colors.
Edit: and soulslikes really refers to two things:
currency experience
dropping it when you die
That seems to be what the industry has decided on when they tag a game “soulslike”. But they’re missing the most vital pieces. Thats why “2D rpgs with deep lore” are role playing games and not soulslikes.
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.
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.
Thing is, thats not what attracts us. Its the way the world is alive. Lords finally did it too. The world is built to where it tells a story.
The Fire Giant is imprisoned by the kiln, left to be the last lone guard.
We arrive at the Temple of the Deep, only to hear i passing from an NPC that Aldritch isn’t there, when we arrive where he should be he is not there.
The weird singing beasts around Liurnia can have their song translated, and they sing of being persecuted by the “Golden Ones”.
These things are crafted with care, knowledge, and purpose. All of this is antithema to the quick bursting format of GaaS, where content is live for all of 3 months before becoming dead. It does not serve the art form, and you’ll be left with hollow shell of a game as devs don’t have time to breath life into each boss. You’ll also end up getting even more reskins and people already complain about that.
That’s what attracts you, I have never heard anyone compliment the story.
And if it was that then they wouldn’t be “Souls like” because you can have a 2d rpg with “deep lore”
Mans has gone hollow, doesn’t think the atmosphere and lore are a major draw of FromSoft Souls games. So much so that nesrly every other Soulslike has tried to have a mind blowing story. Look at the genre dude, its painted in Miyazaki’s favorite colors.
Edit: and soulslikes really refers to two things:
That seems to be what the industry has decided on when they tag a game “soulslike”. But they’re missing the most vital pieces. Thats why “2D rpgs with deep lore” are role playing games and not soulslikes.
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?
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.
Steam also thinks Valhiem and Grounded are Souls-like then, I think you can find a better argument
Read the rest of my comment.
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
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.
“I get to decide what you like about the things you enjoy, not you!”
Yes that’s what I said he was saying
Unfortunately for him, what he likes about a game doesn’t define a genre
Are you stupid or dumb?
Sorry to be the one to tell you that genres aren’t just things about a game that you like but you really should have known
I didnt say anything about genres, i called you stupid
That’s the discussion you joined, you chose the side of “only good games exist in this genre”