Talk:Soulslike

Name

In almost all of the sources I have seen which refers to the topic, the first letter is almost always capitalized, as in Metroidvania, as opposed to roguelike or rogue-like. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule on when something should or should not be capitalized, but "Soulslike" in the decade since the launch of Dark Souls and the popularization of this subgenre is still routinely presented as such. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Haleth: I've seen it as both, but given how roguelike is used nowadays, it will probably end up non-capitalized as it becomes more widely accepted as a genre term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I definitely see where you are coming from, but I think your interpretation of how other sources would define the genre term in the future with roguelike as a comparison falls under the definition of WP:CRYSTAL in my opinion. We should focus on how existing sources present this emerging subgenre in any cited discussion. I brought up Metroidvania because that is a good example of a genre term that is almost always capitalized whenever it is discussed in written media, and I don't see evidence that it will change anytime soon. Haleth (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Soulslike vs Soulsborne

This article claims that "Soulsborne" is an alternate name for the soulslike subgenre. However, most current use of the terms seem to distinguish the two terms - "Soulsborne" is used to refer specifically to the games made by FromSoftware (i.e., the Souls series, Bloodborne, Sekiro and Elden Ring) whereas "soulslike" is used to refer to the subgenre as a whole, including games made by other developers. Would it be worth clarifying this in the article, or is there not enough consensus on the usage of these two terms to make a distinction? Herr Katze (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is explicitly stated in the article: 'Soulslike games developed by FromSoftware themselves have been specifically referred to as Soulsborne games, ... '. Droge hond (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Definition

'Souls' in Soulslike refer not only to the word Souls in the titles. Souls are the universal in-game currency (instead of money) aswell as a reward for killing enemies. You will lose them and may be regathered one single time after dying. Alot of the information in this article and even in some of the included references feel quite anecdotical and make little to no mention of that specific aspect. Souls, blood echoes in Bloodborne, Amrita in Nioh; they're all essentially proxies for experience based points used as a currency and to level up (both stats and gear). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instinkertje (talk • contribs)

We have this factor covered in Gameplay "Soulslike games also usually have means to permanently improve the player-character's abilities as to be able to progress further, often by a type of currency that can be earned and spent, but may be lost or abandoned between deaths if not appropriately managed, similar to the souls in the Souls series." --Masem (t) 13:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sekiro included in the list of Soulslike games?

Just from what I've seen and heard, the game doesn't share many qualities with other games considered to be Soulslikes. I believe that even Miyazaki has said that he doesn't consider it to be one. SammyWhell (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split Article restructuring

Original proposal

I propose splitting content from this article into a new article titled "Soulsborne". While there isn't much reason to perform a WP:SIZESPLIT I believe that "Soulslike" and "Soulsborne" are distinctly different topics. "Soulsborne" is a series of video games made by FromSoftware, includingincluding Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, and Elden Ring. However, a "Soulslike" refers to a genre—games that are inspired by Soulsborne games and share attributes such as intense difficulty, but are not made by FromSoft nor are they part of the Soulsborne series. So, I propose we split this into two articles: a series article covering the Soulsborne series (it certainly meets notability, tons of sources discuss them as a group), and a genre article covering the Soulslike genre. DecafPotato (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC) There is zero reason for splitting just because one term us a more narrow definition. The distinction you are suggesting can be covered on this page. Masem (t) 16:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC) It's not a different definition--it's a separate thing. What I mean is that, like, a Soulsborne article would have things typical for series articles like a "development" section, "reception" section, and, like a timeline, while a Soulslike article would have things typical for genre articles like an overview and definition. DecafPotato (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC) hell, the term "soulslike" could just be covered in an "influence"/"legacy" section of a "Soulsborne" article, so I guess that's a possible proposal too. DecafPotato (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose, per the exact reasons Masem described. Presuming you agree that, at the very least, these are very closely related topics (even if there a distinction could be made, one that is not consistent nor enforced anywhere), then... fine. Articles can cover multiple closely-related topics. (Side rant: This is a deep antipattern on Wikipedia. People argue about what "deserves" a topic and not what the best way to present information is. Fine, maybe 10 things all "deserve" some metaphysical recognition, but if they are easily covered in a single Wikipedia article...) SnowFire (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC) give me a sec to give my idea more clear: Draft:Soulsborne for an example (i'll start work in a bit). after more thoughts/responses from you & Masem, this is becoming more of a rework of the article to swap the topics around. i'm not actually sure the Soulslike genre is notable outside of the influence/legacy of the Soulsborne series. DecafPotato (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

After further thought, I'm striking the proposal to split and giving my new thoughts for a restructuring: The term "Soulslike" is a niche word used to describe games based on the "Soulsborne" series. (the soulsborne series includes Dark/Demon's Souls, Elden Ring, Bloodborne, and Sekiro, per sources [1][2]/[3], though [4] excludes Sekiro and Elden Ring, it's not perfect, but a decent distinction) The genre as a whole is too contentious to authoritatively describe as a genre, imo—[5] and [6] aren't too keen on it, [7] shows division between developers, and [8], [9], and [10] (all of which don't actually analyse the genre but rather just give a quick description) aren't enough to strongly counterbalance it.

The Soulsborne series, however, has a more clear definition. While Sekiro and Elden Ring aren't always included (see above) the definition is enough to make a clear article, while still discussing disputes. In this series article, it can discuss "Soulslike" as the influence and legacy of the Soulsborne series—because that's what it is. This isn't Rogue, where it's legacy as a subgenre warrants its own article because it's widely considered to be a subgenre and has many games that fall into the category. Sources for specific non-Soulsborne Soulslikes are few and far between, and straggler reviews describing games as "Soulslikes" aren't enough to authoritatively place the game in the genre. This source, which is used in the article to place Stranger of Paradise: Final Fantasy Origin into the Soulslike genre, is a situational source that compares the game's character creator to that of other Soulslikes. The paragraph below that, listing games noted to have been influenced by Soulsborne games, is even more clearly just "influence and legacy" of Soulsborne—the sources don't describe those games as Soulslike, they describe them as having been influenced by Soulsborne. So that's what we should do. Make this article into one on the Soulsborne series, and describe the term "Soulslike" and its reception, as well as other games influenced by Soulsborne series in a "Influence and legacy" section of the article. DecafPotato (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

workin' on this proposal at Draft:Soulsborne, to give you an idea of what I'm trying to say, though note it won't really resemble my vision for a bit, there's more work needed. DecafPotato (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Soulsborne series. It is just a name for the grouping of soulslike that are specifically from FromSoftware. Period. Yes, the three Dark Souls are thematically connected but we have a series page for those. The most widely used term is Soulslike to discuss games from all developers, though nearly every article I've seen makes sure to tip the hat to FromSoftware for establishing it. This is a solution in search of a problem. Masem (t) 01:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of sources discuss "Soulsborne" as a series—see [11] and [12] for sources not in the above. As for the term "Soulslike", you didn't actually respond to any points I brought up—all articles focused on the term "Soulslike" that I could find were shared in the comment, and its usage is too divisive to authoritatively use the term in my opinion. If you contest the data or the conclusion, you should say that. And do you have a source for "it is just a name for the grouping of Soulslikes that are specifically from FromSoftware"? DecafPotato (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fear and Hunger

Fear and Hunger doesn't have soulslike death mechanics. Death in this game is end of run, you need to restart (or load save). Quoted article talks about approach to learning the game (trying again and gaining knowledge by failing), not about in-game mechanics: "approach to difficulty mirrors the Soulsborne games where failure is a lesson and not a punishment" 2A02:A31A:42:7000:B08C:79E5:7AE1:418C (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The link to Fear and Hunger article is also broken, while Wikipedia has Fear and Hunger page already: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fear_and_Hunger 2A02:A31A:42:7000:B08C:79E5:7AE1:418C (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)