Lawlight said:
I disagree. I think the only thing in common between Zelda and the Souls game is that the characters hold a sword. Zelda has no RPG elements, is not a combat driven game and has puzzles. The Elder Scrolls are based on the Ultima games basically. |
If that's all you see in common, then we have a far different definition of what the phrase "in common" means. In Souls games you use either a hub world or overworld to reach dungeons or dungeon-esque areas that you then traverse while unlocking shortcuts to allow you to more easily return to areas previously reached. At the end of these areas is a boss using unique tactics with specific weaknesses and these bosses ultimately serve as milestones of progress. The combat system uses the exact same principles, with a lock on, dodge, and role setup just with more weapons. Frankly, I identified the similarities years ago when I had only a little experience with Zelda. And as another poster pointed out, the devs of the Souls series openly acknowledge the similarities.
Also, there's a difference between a thing being the progenitor and something being a major influence. Hydlide did Zelda before Zelda did but no one with most of their brains in their skull regards Hydlide as the greater influencer of action games. That's why I said Zelda influenced the direction RPGs took. Because while Ultima was the progenitor (sorta. Kinda.) And Square did lots of RPG things, Zelda's influence on gamers and gaming as a whole no doubt helped influence the rise of action-combat, open world RPGs to topple the domminant turn based RPGs of the past.







