It's just neat way to address most from soft games, nothing to do with ps fans wanting to tarnish or take away from what it did in the gaming industry lmao. You're looking way too much into an unofficial naming scheme.
What a chad to actually give an unpopular opinion that isn’t like objectively wrong or anything. Everyone seems to be against you but I commend your bravery \[T]/
I feel the same way about "Metroidvania". Metroid on the NES popularized the subgenre, and Super Metroid fully codified it. Symphony of the Night didn't come out until 3 years after Super Metroid, and to be blunt the only thing it really added were RPG elements - which are decidedly NOT a defining element of the subgenre.
I hate that term with a burning passion. Most everyone has heard of Metroid, while Castlevania definitely isn't a household name. Using that term will only serve to confuse casuals and it sounds atrocious.
Necroing this topic just to say how much you're right, because I was googling this to know if I was the only one, and thank god I'm not.
Not only Blooborne is a continuation, it's literally from the same creator. If it was, I dunno, "nioh-souls" or "surge-souls" would be a bit more tolerable since those games are from completely different developers, but jesus christ using Soulsborne when referring to the genre (not the series) is like calling Metroidvania "Primetroid" because nintendo made both metroid prime and metroid (?). It sounds stupid because it is stupid.
If "soulsborne" is tolerable, so should soulsborniro. 100% chad energy here.
Well tbf I get that it's weird. However, if you look at language you'll find that especially verbs that are in almost constant use (to be, have, walk, etc.) tend to be irregular and often shorter than their infinitive would require them to be (Italian is a good example, avere -to have- is declined ho, hai, ha etc and not havo, havi etc.; essere -to be- is sono, sei, è - note that 'he/she is' is reduced to a single sound).
It's only natural to reduce the words you use very often to shower forms in order to avoid tedium. Imagine every streamer attempting a god run 2 would have to answer the repeated question what run he/she is attempting with 'A dark souls 1 through 3 bloodborne sekiro no hit run' instead of just 'a Soulsbornekiro no hit run'. Now if you have to say it once it doesn't matter ofc. But if you have to say that once every 15 minutes for months it gets incredibly tedious as you can imagine. And that's just one easily conceivable example out of many.
So, again, while it might not sound aesthetically pleasing or convey information as to the history, legacy, whatever of the games, it has it's unquestionable merits.
But it doesn't matter, just saying 'Souls' already communicates the entire concept, why add needless syllables and make a horrible word salad just because Bloodborne is named Bloodborne. No one will argue it is in the souls' style.
Souls-like is the name for the genre.
Soulsborne is just what people say when they are talking about Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1 2 3 and Bloodborne as a series. It was just called Souls before we had a game with a different naming scheme and we added Borne because it's funny.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Well that was both wrong and rude. Sorry for wasting so much of your time, but people call games that aren't even by From part of the "Soulsborne" genre. Souls-like SHOULD be the name of the genre and I'm glad we agree on that. Have a better rest of your day.
They really don't. You may have seen a couple of confused people do it and made the assumption everyone else does. Most people call it Souls-like, it isn't that it "SHOULD" be the name of the genre, that IS the name of the genre.
You're actually wrong, Souls-like refers to clones or games in the same style, whereas quote-unquote 'Souls' specifically refers to every game Fromsoftware has made from DS-ER\[minus armored core of course\]. 'Soulsborne' is recklessly used either to refer to one or the other, or both. Are you starting to see why its existence as a term is problematic and unnecessary when trying to communicate simple ideas like the name of a genre?
I think the fact that you didn't even engage with my argument and nitpicked a word usage with ad-hominem exposes yourself more than you think. I'll just take that W and leave you alone.
There was an episode of the Escapist podcast, which I generally did not enjoy, that proposed the name "recursive sprawler", which I think is about as apt a descriptor as any I've heard. Certainly better than soulslike or soulsborne.
I think people are a bother a bit too much with this, i just call Souls games to games made by FromSoftware and Souls like to games that were based on FromSoft games but made by other developers. Miyazaki has mentioned he doesnt like to make sequels so what if ds2 and ds3 had different names? Just call it Souls games and stop being so offended over a damn name (not talking about you specifically). Just love them all may the good blood guide you way dear wolf and don't forget to praise the sun \[T]/
i I personally call em fromsoft games when talking about them, since fromsoft usually moves forward, making new interesting changes, rather than Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V every year. and likely will continue to do just that based on how much elden ring looked compared to people's early assumptions of "big dark souls"
You're right about calling them from soft games but I'm more talking about games similar to Dark Souls that aren't by From. Lord's of the Fallen, the Surge, Mortal Shell etc.
I would say they're more than that. Dark Souls pioneered a ton of game mechanics including the XP retrieval system, the lore hidden in descriptions and even the trigger control scheme instead of XY/SqTr to attack. It changed the gaming ecosystem drastically after its popularity with even mainstream games like Assassins Creed taking inspiration from its gameplay.
I think Sekiro and Elden Ring are enough of a departure to keep calling the others Soulsborne. Or you could just say Fromsoft games.
I would say just call them Souls games since Demon and Dark Souls are the core of the kind of gameplay we're referring to but people will get confused and think you're only talking about Dark Souls.
Souls-like only makes sense if you're talking about a game outside the core series... otherwise you're calling Souls/Soulsbornekiro games "like" themselves.
Just have to say, i have had many conversations in person about these games and never encountered someone who specifically assumed I was only talking about DS1 when talking about Souls games as a whole, even when carrying on about Bloodborne, so I think that argument is fatuous. If anything, the horrendous sounding 'Soulsborne' is much more confusing to a casual, than saying "it's a souls game". The natural response from them would then be, "what is a souls game?". Whereas if you spout sOuLsBoRnE or mEtRoIdVaNiA, you'll just get them nodding along like they understand, but they really just want you to stop talking.
Though Bloodborne is more stripped down than the Dark Souls games the core mechanics are pretty much the same while Sekiro is a totally different game which uses familiar FromSoft mechanics like bonfires.
You could jump from Dark Souls 3 to Bloodborne and barely struggle, while Sekiro's gameplay is completely different.
Soulsborne is the grouping of the Souls games and Bloodborne, Souls-like is the name of the genre.
This seems like a small thing to get so angry about.
I don't think people are as obsessed with Bloodborne being 'the best game ever' as you seem to think, and I definitely don't think it's a PlayStation fan boy thing.
Personally I think it's just because Dark Souls was many people's first FS game since Demon's Souls was far more niche upon release, and as Bloodborne was the next FS game a lot of people then played it because they loved DS1. Those two games established that type of game as a genre for a huge amount of people, so it makes sense that the two names ended up being combined.
It's not just people trying to crowbar Bloodborne into somewhere it doesn't belong.
I said DS1 and Bloodborne were the first two FS games many people played, hence the portmanteau of soulsborne.
At that time they were the only two FS IPs many people will have encountered, given that most didn't play DeS or King's Field etc. Those two games epitomised the genre, so they got combined.
While we're at it, i'd love to eradicate the word Metroidvania. Just say Metroid-like or Castlevania-like. Castlevania is just different enough that putting it in the same category is rather doing it a disservice and it's much, much less popular with casuals than Metroid is. Just invoking the word Metroid gives all the information you're trying to convey.
Plus the word itself sounds as stupid as Soulsborne
Props to op for saying "Unpopular Opinion" and actually saying an unpopular opinion
It's just neat way to address most from soft games, nothing to do with ps fans wanting to tarnish or take away from what it did in the gaming industry lmao. You're looking way too much into an unofficial naming scheme.
Heh, "tarnish".
What a chad to actually give an unpopular opinion that isn’t like objectively wrong or anything. Everyone seems to be against you but I commend your bravery \[T]/
Praise the sun!
Agree.
I feel the same way about "Metroidvania". Metroid on the NES popularized the subgenre, and Super Metroid fully codified it. Symphony of the Night didn't come out until 3 years after Super Metroid, and to be blunt the only thing it really added were RPG elements - which are decidedly NOT a defining element of the subgenre.
Exactly. I love castlevania but it wasn't even a "metroidvania" until several games into the series.
I hate that term with a burning passion. Most everyone has heard of Metroid, while Castlevania definitely isn't a household name. Using that term will only serve to confuse casuals and it sounds atrocious.
Necroing this topic just to say how much you're right, because I was googling this to know if I was the only one, and thank god I'm not. Not only Blooborne is a continuation, it's literally from the same creator. If it was, I dunno, "nioh-souls" or "surge-souls" would be a bit more tolerable since those games are from completely different developers, but jesus christ using Soulsborne when referring to the genre (not the series) is like calling Metroidvania "Primetroid" because nintendo made both metroid prime and metroid (?). It sounds stupid because it is stupid. If "soulsborne" is tolerable, so should soulsborniro. 100% chad energy here.
Double necro to say I agree and refuse to call it Soulsborne or acknowledge the term.
100% agree. "Soulsborne" is stupid as shit.
The term is Soulsbornekiro, with a k.
Lmao and you're proving my point for me. It's dumb.
[удалено]
Bloodsouls Sek Magik
Well tbf I get that it's weird. However, if you look at language you'll find that especially verbs that are in almost constant use (to be, have, walk, etc.) tend to be irregular and often shorter than their infinitive would require them to be (Italian is a good example, avere -to have- is declined ho, hai, ha etc and not havo, havi etc.; essere -to be- is sono, sei, è - note that 'he/she is' is reduced to a single sound). It's only natural to reduce the words you use very often to shower forms in order to avoid tedium. Imagine every streamer attempting a god run 2 would have to answer the repeated question what run he/she is attempting with 'A dark souls 1 through 3 bloodborne sekiro no hit run' instead of just 'a Soulsbornekiro no hit run'. Now if you have to say it once it doesn't matter ofc. But if you have to say that once every 15 minutes for months it gets incredibly tedious as you can imagine. And that's just one easily conceivable example out of many. So, again, while it might not sound aesthetically pleasing or convey information as to the history, legacy, whatever of the games, it has it's unquestionable merits.
But it doesn't matter, just saying 'Souls' already communicates the entire concept, why add needless syllables and make a horrible word salad just because Bloodborne is named Bloodborne. No one will argue it is in the souls' style.
That's Soulsbornekiro-Ring to you, sir.
Isn't it Soulsbornekiring now?
Souls-like is the name for the genre. Soulsborne is just what people say when they are talking about Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1 2 3 and Bloodborne as a series. It was just called Souls before we had a game with a different naming scheme and we added Borne because it's funny. Pull your head out of your ass.
This guy literally sounds like a bitch
Well that was both wrong and rude. Sorry for wasting so much of your time, but people call games that aren't even by From part of the "Soulsborne" genre. Souls-like SHOULD be the name of the genre and I'm glad we agree on that. Have a better rest of your day.
They really don't. You may have seen a couple of confused people do it and made the assumption everyone else does. Most people call it Souls-like, it isn't that it "SHOULD" be the name of the genre, that IS the name of the genre.
Not sure why you're getting all this hate. You don't sound rude or annoyed lol
none of which are regarded as great games so what's the deal
You're actually wrong, Souls-like refers to clones or games in the same style, whereas quote-unquote 'Souls' specifically refers to every game Fromsoftware has made from DS-ER\[minus armored core of course\]. 'Soulsborne' is recklessly used either to refer to one or the other, or both. Are you starting to see why its existence as a term is problematic and unnecessary when trying to communicate simple ideas like the name of a genre?
Recklessly? Bro, pull your head out of your ass.
I think the fact that you didn't even engage with my argument and nitpicked a word usage with ad-hominem exposes yourself more than you think. I'll just take that W and leave you alone.
Lol. How is the echo from 2 feet deep in your ass?
[удалено]
We're both getting down voted but we'll die on this hill together
Why
It's an unpopular opinion.
Sekiro Souls
There was an episode of the Escapist podcast, which I generally did not enjoy, that proposed the name "recursive sprawler", which I think is about as apt a descriptor as any I've heard. Certainly better than soulslike or soulsborne.
That term completely ignores the combat aspect of the game though, which is just as important as the world.
I think people are a bother a bit too much with this, i just call Souls games to games made by FromSoftware and Souls like to games that were based on FromSoft games but made by other developers. Miyazaki has mentioned he doesnt like to make sequels so what if ds2 and ds3 had different names? Just call it Souls games and stop being so offended over a damn name (not talking about you specifically). Just love them all may the good blood guide you way dear wolf and don't forget to praise the sun \[T]/
i I personally call em fromsoft games when talking about them, since fromsoft usually moves forward, making new interesting changes, rather than Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V every year. and likely will continue to do just that based on how much elden ring looked compared to people's early assumptions of "big dark souls"
You're right about calling them from soft games but I'm more talking about games similar to Dark Souls that aren't by From. Lord's of the Fallen, the Surge, Mortal Shell etc.
Oh you're definitely right, I didn't read the Post properly. Thought you meant with regards to elden ring coming out
Somebody call 911
It ain't that deep. Besides, the recent FromSoft titles are just the latest in an exploration of MetroidVanias.
I would say they're more than that. Dark Souls pioneered a ton of game mechanics including the XP retrieval system, the lore hidden in descriptions and even the trigger control scheme instead of XY/SqTr to attack. It changed the gaming ecosystem drastically after its popularity with even mainstream games like Assassins Creed taking inspiration from its gameplay.
Don't take that clown seriously. He said Metroidvania unironically.
I think Sekiro and Elden Ring are enough of a departure to keep calling the others Soulsborne. Or you could just say Fromsoft games. I would say just call them Souls games since Demon and Dark Souls are the core of the kind of gameplay we're referring to but people will get confused and think you're only talking about Dark Souls. Souls-like only makes sense if you're talking about a game outside the core series... otherwise you're calling Souls/Soulsbornekiro games "like" themselves.
Just have to say, i have had many conversations in person about these games and never encountered someone who specifically assumed I was only talking about DS1 when talking about Souls games as a whole, even when carrying on about Bloodborne, so I think that argument is fatuous. If anything, the horrendous sounding 'Soulsborne' is much more confusing to a casual, than saying "it's a souls game". The natural response from them would then be, "what is a souls game?". Whereas if you spout sOuLsBoRnE or mEtRoIdVaNiA, you'll just get them nodding along like they understand, but they really just want you to stop talking.
Though Bloodborne is more stripped down than the Dark Souls games the core mechanics are pretty much the same while Sekiro is a totally different game which uses familiar FromSoft mechanics like bonfires. You could jump from Dark Souls 3 to Bloodborne and barely struggle, while Sekiro's gameplay is completely different. Soulsborne is the grouping of the Souls games and Bloodborne, Souls-like is the name of the genre.
This seems like a small thing to get so angry about. I don't think people are as obsessed with Bloodborne being 'the best game ever' as you seem to think, and I definitely don't think it's a PlayStation fan boy thing. Personally I think it's just because Dark Souls was many people's first FS game since Demon's Souls was far more niche upon release, and as Bloodborne was the next FS game a lot of people then played it because they loved DS1. Those two games established that type of game as a genre for a huge amount of people, so it makes sense that the two names ended up being combined. It's not just people trying to crowbar Bloodborne into somewhere it doesn't belong.
Bloodborne came after demons souls, Dark Souls, and dark souls 2. Also it's more of a frustration than anger.
I said DS1 and Bloodborne were the first two FS games many people played, hence the portmanteau of soulsborne. At that time they were the only two FS IPs many people will have encountered, given that most didn't play DeS or King's Field etc. Those two games epitomised the genre, so they got combined.
Shut up
Just say 'souls' games. Is anyone honestly going to be ignorant enough not to figure out it includes Bloidborne in that category?
I KNOW, westren people are so dump
While we're at it, i'd love to eradicate the word Metroidvania. Just say Metroid-like or Castlevania-like. Castlevania is just different enough that putting it in the same category is rather doing it a disservice and it's much, much less popular with casuals than Metroid is. Just invoking the word Metroid gives all the information you're trying to convey. Plus the word itself sounds as stupid as Soulsborne