Unpopular Opinion

That's because you arn't a masochist!🤭

From Software games have been building on a game engine and design concept for decades across platforms and franchises.

Your average game developer isn't going to be able to adapt that very easily or faithfully.

The Roguelike/lite as a standalone genre though is a little more expansive and forgiving to judge.

I am personally just confused about when rogue like and deck builder became interchangeable

When I see "Souls-like" I think of a game where the difficulty is only there to give people with too much time on their hands a sense of superiority.

Souls likes, despite their reputation, aren't hard. They just require you to pay attention. (Well, when they're designed well.) They ask that you engage with the game, it's mechanics, and what it's telling you. Bosses are generally either a test of skill or a test that you learned what the boss is weak to. Usually they can be trivialized. Traditionally it's the world that's difficult, but it's mostly just about learning, being patient, and being observant.

Along with your definition of roguelike being wrong, I think you have some unfounded biases. You're probably missing out on games you'd love because you made up your mind that you don't like them without trying them.

Hey, just to be a pedantic asshole...

When I see “Roguelike” I imagine a game that’s too small to be a real game, so they made it so you can never win and just have to keep trying and you’ll get a decent number of hours out of it. With just enough progression each time that you start to believe it’s possible you’ll get somewhere meaningful.

You're describing a 'roguelite', which implies metaprogression. 'roguelike' normally means that there is no (or extremely little) metaprogression... getting better is just about increasing player knowledge, typically. The terms are used somewhat interchangeably sometimes but some games, at least, still use them correctly.

That said, if the size is the killer... Take a look at Caves of Qud. It's a traditional roguelike, but there's non-perma-death options when starting a new game, and the size of the game was definitely not the reason for choosing the genre.

That's... the point of the descriptive tags?

I've never played a Souls game. Nothing about "you're supposed to die a lot and redo it all until you've mastered it" is appealing to me. I don't have the patience for it.

I'm not saying thats a bad format for a game. I just don't want to spend my free time and money on something I'm sure I won't like.

A few generations prior see us mashing buttons all day without any apparent effect. The rules of any game only make sense when you develop your gaming experience to accommodate them. Just like movies only make sense because we choose to believe in the mechanics of storytelling.

The best roguelite to try doesn't appear to be a rogue-like game at all. It's called Blue Prince.

Try Hades. It has a full storyline, wonderful characters, and each time you 'lose' it's part of the story. And it's super fun and addictive

It seems to be a popular belief that Souls-Like games require players to have "too much time on their hands". If I have 15 minutes to kill and I want to boot up a game, most Souls-Likes are a great option to kill the time. They are really designed to be picked up and put down at any moment.

I won't try to change your mind on these genres, but it is kinda wild to me that people have these strong negative opinions about games they have never played. I'm not saying you need to try a game to know if you'll like it or not, but it seems your understanding of these games is very uninformed.

Honestly a lot of the “sense of superiority” and “these games will beat you senseless” types of sentiments regarding Souls actually stem from some really early marketing decisions that the developers didn’t originally intend

Fromsoft is actually self published in Japan, and Bandai helped them distribute the game to western audiences. There’s a whole essay worth of information we could talk about regarding what was popular in the west at that time, but basically when marketing the game they focussed on the intensity and the violence and how hardcore and badass you’d be for making it through.

It worked like a charm, and the games succeed financially and developed that frankly kinda rancid reputation (fans bragging about finishing a boss, coining “just get good”). It was enough to deter me from getting involved with it for literally a decade, until Sekiro came out

I go crazy for katanas and any samurai type stuff so I jumped in. Had a great experience, still one of my favorite games, and it was enough to get me to go back and try out the older souls games.

And the truth is the games are nothing like what the marketing or the rabid fans would have you believe. The art and presentation is that intense, but the actual game is borderline…cozy? In a weird way?

The thing that trips people up is the game has animation commitment, so once you hit attack you have to wait for the whole move to finish before you can act again. But the enemies are also like that, and furthermore, Fromsoft has the best animation telegraphing in the business. So you can just watch the boss, learn what they’re gonna do, wait to see how long they’re vulnerable after a given attack, and then subsequent times you see that attack you have a good idea of how much time you have to land your own attacks.

So once you “tune in” to this style of combat, it becomes a really meditative experience, one that rewards patience and observation. What makes it work so beautifully is that the presentation and music is so intense, to the point where you can actually become wrapped up in that and lose focus.

So in essence, I would say Souls games more than anything are about cultivating a mentality of remaining calm and peaceful during a storm, and then witnessing how your peaceful nature will allow you to endure any hardship.

We didn’t really get that sentiment much in games in the west at that time. So everything about the perception of the games stems from that. People feel so strongly about finishing the games because doing so genuinely taught them an important lesson. But the early marketing colored the public perception of the experience in a way that really misled many people who I think would ultimately adore the games

If I see another game self-described as an indie retro pixel dungeon Metroidvania soulslike I will punch a wall

"Soulslike" is almost meaningless without context. It can mean "a game that is like dark souls" or "a game that is nothing like dark souls but we bolted on a corpse run to reclaim your cash".

I came down a similar way. Though after years of hearing about the greatness of the genre, especially from FromSoftware games with their masterful design, I could no longer deny my interest, considering I try to be a curious and unbiased person. So I went with Elden Ring. I've dropped it several times, because I was bored and it felt like I was wasting time. I still did 100% out of spite, then buried it with no intent to touch it ever again. Still, I appreciate the game design, especially the enemies and the variety of viable builds. However I personally don't care for these things at all in games, so it wasn't really something that was meant for me to be enjoyed. I think it's similar to many of the more popular games of the genre, so I usually skip them. I don't mind the occasional rougelite to pick up and drop after a few hours though.

PS. I feel bad for FromSoftware. People praise their stuff to the heavens. I've seen a handful of people giving constructive criticism only to be met with hate. I'm pretty sure FromSoftware would prefer to receive the criticism to improve instead of being praised from all sides. But then again, I'm not deep enough in their rabbit hole, so that's just what I see.

When I see “Souls-like” I think of a game where the difficulty is only there to give people with too much time on their hands a sense of superiority.

Yeah I completely agree xD

I play games for the story (mainly) rather than for grinding. Grinding is only worth it when you get a visual feedback like building a farm or a city

"Rogue-like" is a different matter. Combined with souls like, then yes, it's just buzzword and pretty not-good. But it typically means more replayability because of maximised procedural level generation. If you have time, check out Shattered Pixel Dungeon, as it's free. You can objectively "win" at it, over and over again, and it isn't small in the sense of "lacking in content" or gameplay.

I like rogue type games, but soulslike stuff? I don't have the time to play something like that these days. Roguelikes you can pick up, play a bit, and then get back to whatever is requiring your attention. I think my fondness of roguelikes is because I liked games like Rogue and NetHack back in the day.

This is a truly unpopular opinion. Bravo.

Both genres are full of stinkers, because they're practically buzzwords at this point, but there are some real gems in there that are definitely worth your time.

My metric for a good game is "if there is a pet like animal in it (that isn't the centerpiece of the game), can I pet said animal or otherwise interact with it in a way that would make it want to be my friend"

The number of games that fail this simple metric are worryingly high.

If you put an animal in your game to flesh it out, let me pet the damn thing. I am willing to die on this hill.

Same for me with "deck builder".

Is chess a roguelike?

I mean I was not even aware of the term when I played elden ring for the first time. Don't get me started on roguelike though as for me that means in the manner of an ascii dungeon game.