Quantcast
Rank the Soulslikes You've Played

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Rank the Soulslikes You've Played

1. Demon's Souls (Probably because of nostalgia)
2. BloodBorne
3. Dark Souls 3
4. Dark Souls
5. Dark Souls 2
6. Nioh
7. Surge
9. Sekiro

I've just started Code Vein so can't rank it yet, I also own Lotf but haven't heard good things about it.



Around the Network
Runa216 said:
Yeah, anyone saying that sekiro was stupid hard or unfairly hard just sucked at the game. I absolutely loathe the 'git gud' mentality and always have (it's why I took forever to get on the Souls bandwagon), but it's true with Sekiro. The game is incredibly fair - arguably the most fair of all the soulslike I've played - it's just by far the most demanding and has the greatest margin of error.

In Bloodborne and Souls (especially Souls 1 and 3), dodging was viable for all combat encounters. In DS2 you had to raise a stat to use dodge, but it was OP as hell if you got it. you could dodge roll and use agility to fight there, but in Sekiro, there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. With most bosses, each move has a specific counter and you have to identify what it is and react accordingly. you can't dodge-roll out of the way all the time because some moves require a block or deflect, some require you to jump, some require you to run, some require you to Mikiri Counter.

As I said, Sekiro is only half a souls game, and that half is the design philosophy and world building and a handful of mechanics, the story and combat and all that is remarkably different. that's why I love it. It's great and clearly inspired by some of my favourite games but also definitely unique.

Disagree completely.  But it isn't worth getting into it.  



I have the best memories from Demon's and Dark Souls 1. I like the setting of the Souls games more than Bloodborne, as well as the mechanics. The medieval setting works very well for me, and I prefer the deeper stats-influence of the Demon's/Dark games more than Bloodborne as well, but Bloodborne is still a 10/10 in terms of my personal taste in games these days.

It's very hard to pick and choose a favorite, but I would probably put Dark Souls 3 at the bottom, as I felt it was too "dark" and didn't have the variety that 1 had, or the length that 2 had (DS2 being the longest game in the series, and if you include the DLC then it is probably close to twice the size of DS3).

Sekiro was also a lot of fun, but it was limited by not having multiplayer and not having the same type of stat progression which I favor.

In terms of games outside of FromSoft, Nioh was perhaps the best in my opinion. The Surge had clunky combat, but I still enjoyed it a lot due to it simply being a Soulslike, and me not having gotten enough of them yet. I think I enjoyed Lords of the Fallen more than I did the Surge, but maybe it's because I played LotF before The Surge; it was very long ago at this point, but I do remember that LotF felt very easy and not punishing enough.

Played a few indies over the years as well. Dark Maus had issues with difficulty, but was still fun and had style. Salt and Sanctuary is the one I liked best of all the indie Soulslikes that I can recall.

Oh, I'm forgetting Ashen, which I still haven't finished, but have played a lot of. Ashen has an awesome art style, very fun gameplay mechanics, and obscure multiplayer mechanics which made me unsure if the person I was playing with was human or NPC at times (you'd think it would be easy to tell, but I had a couple cases where I wasn't sure). If you're looking for a good Soulslike, Ashen is truly spectacular. I think for now it's an EGS exclusive, however.



Runa216 said:
HoloDust said:

I didn't find it stupidly hard, i just didn't care for it. Souls for me are about exploration, atmosphere of the world and great level design (combat in Souls is actually just adequate). Honestly, I didn't care for any of that in Sekiro, in addition to not being able to fiddle with character stats. Yeah, i know Sekiro is not Souls, but that just made me drop it after 2 days and I've never looked back.

Luckily, with Elden Ring they are going back to Souls, just fully open world.

But that's exactly it, Sekiro is not souls. It clearly shares the same ancestors, but it's no more souls than a monkey is a human. it's really not fair to judge a game based on what it's not trying to be and therefore isn't. 

I mean, I GET That some people aren't going to like Sekiro (or souls or bloodborne), so I'm not trying to devalue your opinion on the matter, I just don't understand why these reasons in particular are why you aren't interested in the game. 

Indeed, Sekiro is not Souls, but it does have very similar DNA...you explore a level, you fight, you die and you go from the "bonfire" again ubtil you get to the Boss and defeat it.

The thing is, while Souls is dungeon crawler and is focused on combat, its combat is actually quite average...but I don't mind that one bit, some of my all time favourite games have average combat mechanisms. The reason I don't mind it is that for me combat in Souls is just a means to an end...to progress further and see what interesting thing is around the corner.

Sekiro on the other hand has better combat...it's just that what I found around the corner didn't really captivate me anywhere near as much as Souls have. Similar reason why I didn't bothered with Bloodborne (apart from few hours at my friends), I just didn't like the setting, or why I didn't care for Surge.

Not saying they are bad games by any stretch, just that they didn't do anything for me personally.



Chrkeller said:
Runa216 said:
Yeah, anyone saying that sekiro was stupid hard or unfairly hard just sucked at the game. I absolutely loathe the 'git gud' mentality and always have (it's why I took forever to get on the Souls bandwagon), but it's true with Sekiro. The game is incredibly fair - arguably the most fair of all the soulslike I've played - it's just by far the most demanding and has the greatest margin of error.

In Bloodborne and Souls (especially Souls 1 and 3), dodging was viable for all combat encounters. In DS2 you had to raise a stat to use dodge, but it was OP as hell if you got it. you could dodge roll and use agility to fight there, but in Sekiro, there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. With most bosses, each move has a specific counter and you have to identify what it is and react accordingly. you can't dodge-roll out of the way all the time because some moves require a block or deflect, some require you to jump, some require you to run, some require you to Mikiri Counter.

As I said, Sekiro is only half a souls game, and that half is the design philosophy and world building and a handful of mechanics, the story and combat and all that is remarkably different. that's why I love it. It's great and clearly inspired by some of my favourite games but also definitely unique.

Disagree completely.  But it isn't worth getting into it.  

What's there to disagree with? the statements I made are almost entirely objective facts about the game. while it's subjective whether you liked those things or not is irrelevant, Sekiro has the most refined combat of any of the games and relies the least on RNG thus making it the most fair of the souls titles. If it felt too hard or you felt it was unfair, it wasn't because the game was unfair it was because you failed. 

We've all been there at one point or another with the Souls games, but it's never true. No matter how much we complain and rage quit and throw controllers or break TVs or whatever it is people do when they get angry at videogames, we always come back to realize that, no, the game wasn't unfair, we just weren't approaching it right. 

I fought the final boss of Sekiro for 5 days in a row, and I struggled a lot. I was playing 3-8 hours per day, dying dozens of times to him, and while he was massively hard, he wasn't unfair. It just seemed that way because I wasn't picking up on his hints or patterns. IT's a lot like Ornstein and Smough. To the uninitiated, those bosses are cheap and unfair...but in my 50+ deaths to them, never once did I feel it was unfair. every time I died to them, I either knew what I did wrong immediately or knew a few seconds before I died that I messed up. Either I took my eyes off Smough or I attacked when I should have dodged or I tried for Estus when I should have been focusing on where to go or I backed myself into a corner. the game is certainly punishing - as I'm sure you know, given your avatar - but it's fair. 

And if you read the reviews and listen to the general consensus, it's pretty universally agreed upon that Sekiro is the most FAIR of the games. I agree it's the hardest, but you're in the miniscule minority who feel it's unfair. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

Around the Network

Sekiro apologist contradict themselves.  In the same post you call Sekiro fair but state a single boss took you 15 to 40 hours to beat.....  Lol, wow. 

Any idea how silly that sounds?  It is a paradox.  You bring up S&O, I beat them on my 7th try solo, in about 20 minutes total.  Nothing  remotely close to 40 hours.  Being able to beat something doesn't automatically equate to being fair. No single boss should ever take 40 hours to defeat

 That isn't fair, that is stupid hard.  

As for being in the minority, good.  I'm happy to have an independent voice as opposed to a blind sheep that makes ridiculous claims.

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 25 October 2019

1- Bloodborne(Masterpiece)
2- Demons's Souls(first is always special)
3- Dark Souls( I have more fond memories of it)
4- Dark Souls 3(pretty good)
5- Hollow Knight(impressed me)
6- Dark Souls 2(worst gameplay and lore)
7- Nioh(hate rng loot crap grind/timesinks)



Chrkeller said:

Sekiro apologist contradict themselves.  In the same post you call Sekiro fair but state a single boss took you 15 to 40 hours to beat.....  Lol, wow. 

Any idea how silly that sounds?  It is a paradox.  You bring up S&O, I beat them on my 7th try solo, in about 20 minutes total.  Nothing  remotely close to 40 hours.  Being able to beat something doesn't automatically equate to being fair. No single boss should ever take 40 hours to defeat

 That isn't fair, that is stupid hard.  

As for being in the minority, good.  I'm happy to have an independent voice as opposed to a blind sheep that makes ridiculous claims.

Being fair =/= Easy

The final fight was fair, I just wasn't good enough to figure out his patterns or keep up with his strategies. You seem to be conflating fairness with easiness, and that's why you seem to grossly misunderstand the value of Sekiro. It IS hard. It is ALSO fair. Just because I took a long time figuring out a strategy that worked doesn't mean he doesn't give proper tells or has unblockable hits or puts you in positions where you don't have final say over what happens. 

I was not good enough to beat him quickly. That does not mean he's not fair.



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

Runa216 said:
Chrkeller said:

Sekiro apologist contradict themselves.  In the same post you call Sekiro fair but state a single boss took you 15 to 40 hours to beat.....  Lol, wow. 

Any idea how silly that sounds?  It is a paradox.  You bring up S&O, I beat them on my 7th try solo, in about 20 minutes total.  Nothing  remotely close to 40 hours.  Being able to beat something doesn't automatically equate to being fair. No single boss should ever take 40 hours to defeat

 That isn't fair, that is stupid hard.  

As for being in the minority, good.  I'm happy to have an independent voice as opposed to a blind sheep that makes ridiculous claims.

Being fair =/= Easy

The final fight was fair, I just wasn't good enough to figure out his patterns or keep up with his strategies. You seem to be conflating fairness with easiness, and that's why you seem to grossly misunderstand the value of Sekiro. It IS hard. It is ALSO fair. Just because I took a long time figuring out a strategy that worked doesn't mean he doesn't give proper tells or has unblockable hits or puts you in positions where you don't have final say over what happens. 

I was not good enough to beat him quickly. That does not mean he's not fair.

We will have to agree to disagree.  A boss fight taking 40 hours because of how hard he is, by definition, is unbalanced in my book.  I love souls, I really do.  But I put 20 hours into Sekiro and just didn't like oh so many things about it.  Just a poor game in my opinion.  Easily the biggest disappointment this generation.



Just spent a few hours this morning running Chalice dungeons with a friend...and for the life of me I do not understand why people hate them so much. If this was ALL the game had to offer, I'd think it was pretty cheap and repetitive. However, as what is essentially bonus/side content to an already beefy and well-worth-it game, I think it compliments what we have nicely.

The main game is a metroidvania styled open-world exploration based action RPG, with interwoven world construction and some of the best boss fights in gaming. It's only semi-linear with some opportunity to sequence break giving a player freedom, as well as lots of optional content like Castle Cainhurst and Upper Cathedral Ward. The game on its own is plenty (I fell in love with Bloodborne before I even knew the Chalice Dungeons existed).

But then, once you unlock the chalice dungeons, the whole design mentality is completely different. Rather than one continuous world with side areas, it's more traditionally level based. Each 'world' (chalice) has 3-5 levels within it, each one a mini maze with hidden loot and a boss at the end. It's a wholly different style of gameplay, and while it lacks the refinement and sense of wonder that the main game has, I love that it's linear; it reminds me of the original Castlevania game or other NES/SNES games. I think it's wonderful that Bloodborne has two halves that are so disparate yet well realized. And, I mean, I guess it's kinda weird that rooms and assets are reused, but how is that different from any other sprite/pixel game? Mario Bros and Metroid and Castlevania use the same assets throughout their games, you're fighting the same goombas and dive bombers and stuff, breaking the same brick blocks and whipping the same lanterns, but it's different based on how the levels are put together and the layout.

I just don't understand why people hate them. Again, if that was ALL The game had to offer I'd think it was a little cheap, but as optional side-content, I think it offers a lovely bit of variety to an already outstanding game.

that's why Bloodborne is my topmost loved game in the genre.



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III