Time for Souls games to take a break? Counterpoint: No, it's not.

Rusque

From the column here: http://www.mmorpg.com/columns/its-time-for-the-souls-games-to-take-a-break-1000011558


Apparently Chris Coke thinks that soulsy games are so numerous that they're stifling themselves, even liking them to Assassin's Creed . . . which is a single series.


But, I say that's hogwash. What do we really have? 4 Souls games, Bloodborne, Lords of the Fallen, Nioh, Salt and Sanctuary, Eitr, The Surge. (why he listed Darkest Dungeon is beyond me though)

That's 10 games encompassing an entire sub-genre over the course of 7 years.

Now let's see, Assassin's Creed is just a single series that has 8 titles in its main series, plus another 8 mobile/handheld entries. Hmm.

But if we're looking at it from a genre scope, then what about something like FPS, or MOBA? Those come out by the dozen every time you blink. Maybe they come out so often that no one has time to feel inundated by them?

So how exactly is it time for soulsy games to take a break when there's so few of them? This isn't even taking into consideration the difference between the 2D indies ones vs actual souls style games. Even Nioh is more Ninja Gaiden than Dark Souls, but w/e.

How about just let this genre flourish first before calling for it to take a break? Maybe those of us who enjoy these games have been dying of thirst for games like these while COD fanboys have had 25 titles all to themselves. That's just one single FPS series having more than double the entirety of souls and souls-like games.

After we had to endure the button-mashing God of War era, is it too much to ask to let us have our fun? How many JRPG's is too many? Is it more than 10? Cause there are way more than 10 of those.

The other thing to note about soulsy games is that even though they get talked about a lot, they are really unpopular with the gaming masses. They sell a fraction of units compared to other games. For example the Dark Souls series has sold just over 10 million units (this is counting Dark Souls + Dark Souls 2 + Scholar of the First Sin + Dark Souls 3) - that's 10 million for 4 releases.

Skyrim on the other hand has moved 30 million units. By itself. The relatively new Witcher series upon it's third entry "Witcher 3" has moved over 20 million units.

So maybe it's not time for Souls games to take a break. It's a small genre with a small following, just let us have it. I know it takes up a lot of mind-space, but seriously, if you feel there's "too much" soulsy stuff going on, maybe just don't read those articles. There is no where near enough soulsy stuff. It's a drop in the bucket compared to literally every other thing. The entire genre can barely stand up next to single games of behemoth series.

seeyouspacec0wboy

Well I think using genres like FPS as a comparison doesn't work. The point is that the Souls genre is very niche and that's why it has produced some fantastic games and has a small, cult-like following. That tends to equal quality. The FPS genre is a very mainstream genre that has been around for 20+ years. Everybody has played or plays FPS games. You are right that they come out by the dozen every time you blink, which is why there are infinitely more crappier ones than quality ones. This is exactly what some people don't want to happen to the Souls type games.

This quote from the article sums it up nicely: "Can you have too much of a good thing? When it comes to video games, yes. It kills them."

Makes sense to me and I would imagine it makes sense to most people who have played video games long enough to see their favorite franchises and genres wither away due to exploitation.

Rusque

Yes, but that's putting the cart before the horse. As I said, there are 10 games in this sub-genre. 10. We're quite a bit away from what happens in the FPS genre. I'm not proposing that we should have similar volume, but that the magnitude of difference between this one sub-genre vs just about anything else means it's no where near saturation.

10 games over 7 years and it's "too much" - I think no.

Sovrath

seeyouspacec0wboy said:

Well I think using genres like FPS as a comparison doesn't work. The point is that the Souls genre is very niche and that's why it has produced some fantastic games and has a small, cult-like following. That tends to equal quality. The FPS genre is a very mainstream genre that has been around for 20+ years. Everybody has played or plays FPS games. You are right that they come out by the dozen every time you blink, which is why there are infinitely more crappier ones than quality ones. This is exactly what some people don't want to happen to the Souls type games.

This quote from the article sums it up nicely: "Can you have too much of a good thing? When it comes to video games, yes. It kills them."

Makes sense to me and I would imagine it makes sense to most people who have played video games long enough to see their favorite franchises and genres wither away due to exploitation.

I'm going to have to agree with Rusque, there is no need to stop these "souls like" games.

I also think using FPS games as an example is fine. At one point there weren't a lot. Then over time there were more and more and some were great, some good and some bad.

There is no reason that these "souls like games" can't experience the same thing. There is no reason that these games "have to" be niche games other than they appeal to a limited audience.

They are just a type of game that do things in specific ways. If there are more of them and some of them are bad then that's on those games.

I feel the article is trying to protect something that doesn't need protecting.

MadFrenchie

It's simple: because almost every singleplayer game released can reach Souls' level of difficulty..  All the player has to do is decide to set the level that high.

Most tactical combat games even include iron man and permadeath modes so you can't shlub it using save points and if you lose, you start over from the beginning, not just at your last campfire with the souls from your last life at your corpse.


Souls' games aren't so much a genre as they are a series of games lacking a true spread of difficulty selections.  They just limit it to high/nightmare levels.

ConstantineMerus

MadFrenchie said:

It's simple: because almost every singleplayer game released can reach Souls' level of difficulty..  All the player has to do is decide to set the level that high.

Most tactical combat games even include iron man and permadeath modes so you can't shlub it using save points and if you lose, you start over from the beginning, not just at your last campfire with the souls from your last life at your corpse.


Souls' games aren't so much a genre as they are a series of games lacking a true spread of difficulty selections.  They just limit it to high/nightmare levels.

It is not just the level of difficulty, it is the way it punishes failure. The mechanics involved in designing the whole reward/punish system is what has made this special. Not just because it is hard. 

To be fair, new game is easy when you get the hang of the mechanics. If you are new to the series that will take about 10-15 hours. There are some bosses--which usually skippable--which are extremely hard but overall it is not a very hard game.

It also has level of difficulty, same way original Diablo had. The game gets harder every playthrough. 

The series certainly do have other positive aspects. Level designs are awesome, but it's not open world. Lore is very deep, but not really entertaining. Story is interesting, but not invovling. If they make the game easier than this, it would lose much of its appeal. 

Souls series is about fear. Fear of the environment, fear of the monsters, fear of the surprises, and fear of death: losing your souls and having to do it all over again. 

Sovrath

I was just in Dark Souls III, desperately looking for a bonfire as I only had a quarter health left and a whole lot of souls.

The danger was immense but it was a great feeling that I had to make my way carefully with no mistakes. I finally found an elevator that lifted me close to the start only to be attacked and killed. Got the souls back but still it was amazing fun looking everywhere, going through this dismal hellish land.

I have to say I love this stuff.

MadFrenchie

ConstantineMerus said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's simple: because almost every singleplayer game released can reach Souls' level of difficulty..  All the player has to do is decide to set the level that high.

Most tactical combat games even include iron man and permadeath modes so you can't shlub it using save points and if you lose, you start over from the beginning, not just at your last campfire with the souls from your last life at your corpse.


Souls' games aren't so much a genre as they are a series of games lacking a true spread of difficulty selections.  They just limit it to high/nightmare levels.

It is not just the level of difficulty, it is the way it punishes failure. The mechanics involved in designing the whole reward/punish system is what has made this special. Not just because it is hard. 

To be fair, new game is easy when you get the hang of the mechanics. If you are new to the series that will take about 10-15 hours. There are some bosses--which usually skippable--which are extremely hard but overall it is not a very hard game.

It also has level of difficulty, same way original Diablo had. The game gets harder every playthrough. 

The series certainly do have other positive aspects. Level designs are awesome, but it's not open world. Lore is very deep, but not really entertaining. Story is interesting, but not invovling. If they make the game easier than this, it would lose much of its appeal. 

Souls series is about fear. Fear of the environment, fear of the monsters, fear of the surprises, and fear of death: losing your souls and having to do it all over again. 

I hear you, but I also specifically mentioned tactical games with options increasing death penalties way beyond just losing earned XP/income.  See Xcom series as an example.

I just have a hard time seeing how difficulty can be a hallmark of a series when it doesn't own that difficulty.  Other games present it, too.

Not to disparage the games themselves.  Pretty cool little RPGS ..  But in my mind, they're cool for a bunch of reasons OTHER than "hard."

That series doesn't own that feature, nor is high difficulty unique to it.   It's been around and is included in most singleplayer games.  Most others just also include an easier difficulty for those who wish to experience the story more than the challenge.

For these reasons, I grew tired of Souls about 25 hours into the second entry, and have no real interest in playing any of the others.  As such, I identify with the fatigue.  Not because there's been too many Souls games per se, but because the defining feature of the game isn't at all unique to the series.

YashaX

I think there is a lot of room to evolve/refine the overall "souls" concept. The games I have played that are similar to DS (lords of the fallen, Nioh) are different enough to make them fun and stand out in their own right. Personally, I found Lords to be spectacular. I liked it more than the DS games and I'm finding Nioh to be really enjoyable as well.

However, I think one problem these kinds of games face is the need to be "hard". I see a lot of criticism centered around how difficult a game is compared to Dark Souls: it appears to be some kind of ego thing. You should be able to have a fun rpg dungeon crawler based on precise combat moves without feeling compelled to make it "harder than Dark Souls".