Quantcast
Rank the Soulslikes You've Played

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

Runa216 said:
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.

Agreed. I don't think they're particularly good or bad - just meh - but when it's just bonus content it doesn't really matter. Like you say, if that was the entire game, it'd be a huge issue (part of the reason I'm currently not enjoying Nioh very much), but it isn't so I don't know why people criticise it so much.



Btw I took your advice and skipped over Sekiro for now and started Nioh instead, based on how well loved it seems to be on here. I can't say I agree with the praise it's been getting in this thread right now, 16 hours in. Enemy variety is on the low side and holy shit if I have to revisit that opening map one more time for a side mission I'm going to scream. Clearing the same level over, and over, and over, and over again (not an exaggeration, unfortunately) is not bloody fun, wtf. Talk about unnecessary padding of the game.

Side missions aren't essential of course, but I know if I don't do at least some of the side quests I'm going to fall behind in terms of levels (and despite what everyone in the 'get good' camp says about levels not being important in these games, for anyone who's not a speedrunner or wannabe pro they absolutely are).

Cut out the side missions and balance the game around original maps only and Nioh would be so, so much better.



Around the Network

1. Nioh.
2. Everything else.

Nioh took the Souls concept and ran with it. Made it bigger and better. So much replay value too.



Nioh is free this month.



Runa216 said:
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.

It's not optional if you are going for the Platinum.

And playing a souls game means going for the platinum, which means it's mandatory.



RJTM1991 said:
1. Nioh.
2. Everything else.

Nioh took the Souls concept and ran with it. Made it bigger and better. So much replay value too.

Nioh is incredible.

I still have Demon's Souls in higher regard but Nioh deserves all my love too.



Around the Network
omarct said:
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)

Hollow Knight is not a souls borne, it's a Metroidvania. The core mechanics is all about Metroidvania like. 

Great list.



BraLoD said:
RJTM1991 said:
1. Nioh.
2. Everything else.

Nioh took the Souls concept and ran with it. Made it bigger and better. So much replay value too.

Nioh is incredible.

I still have Demon's Souls in higher regard but Nioh deserves all my love too.

Agreed.

Nioh is great.



1. Demon's Souls (that is all, I dont like the others)



dark souls > dark souls 3 > blood borne > demon souls >>>>> sekiro.

Sekiro is the black sheep, bosses are super hard but unlike dark or bloodbonr they are unfair and fight are stupid long to the point of making it hard , stupid and you have no fun. SOULS is hard fun, sekiro is torture from small bosses that game keeps putting in front of you in the dozens to the worst stupid last boss fight.

I hope elden ring is nothing like sekiro and more like bloodbonr or dark souls



 

Machina said:
Runa216 said:
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.

Agreed. I don't think they're particularly good or bad - just meh - but when it's just bonus content it doesn't really matter. Like you say, if that was the entire game, it'd be a huge issue (part of the reason I'm currently not enjoying Nioh very much), but it isn't so I don't know why people criticise it so much.



Btw I took your advice and skipped over Sekiro for now and started Nioh instead, based on how well loved it seems to be on here. I can't say I agree with the praise it's been getting in this thread right now, 16 hours in. Enemy variety is on the low side and holy shit if I have to revisit that opening map one more time for a side mission I'm going to scream. Clearing the same level over, and over, and over, and over again (not an exaggeration, unfortunately) is not bloody fun, wtf. Talk about unnecessary padding of the game.

Side missions aren't essential of course, but I know if I don't do at least some of the side quests I'm going to fall behind in terms of levels (and despite what everyone in the 'get good' camp says about levels not being important in these games, for anyone who's not a speedrunner or wannabe pro they absolutely are).

Cut out the side missions and balance the game around original maps only and Nioh would be so, so much better.

Not sure if it was my advice to skip Sekiro. I did say to go into it with a different mentality, though! 

as for Nioh, I thought it was okay. 7/10 for me. Good, well made, but it's got elements I don't like (randomized loot, for example) and something about it felt sterile and stiff even if it totally wasn't. It lacked the depth of lore and world building that Fromsoft's games have. I played it, I made it about 25% through, and then moved on. Very long game that I just didn't have the heart to complete. I seem to be in the minority, though. 



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