Unpopular Opinion

I used to not like those, I now like them.

For souls like, the dark souls community was straight up a repellent to the game for me, seeing thr game for myself and not thinking about them was what got me into it. The sense of accomplishment is one thing but for me what I fell in love with was the atmosphere, level design and ARPG-ness.

For roguelikes, my distaste was just the frustration and futility, and not keeping progress. What I dislike now from them is the time sink to sense of accomplishment ratio. I'm still not sold on the concept itself but these days I can enjoy a game despite of it, since good games carry some properties with that that I do like (power ups, builds, the possibility of completely breaking the game, etc).

I see nothing wrong in disliking them, it is true that for many developers the second is a way to make the content last longer but just like with any other tool, as long as it's well used it shouldn't be an issue.

Regarding souls like, these days its used very loosely and I like that, it doesn't tell you much of what you're getting other than some general direction, sometimes it's a stamina bar and a dodge, sometimes is the level design, sometimes the atmosphere, sometimes.

Don't get carried away by just the tags, but once you see too much of the bad examples I can see why they would push you away.

Add metroidvania into the mix.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

Same here. I grew up on artificially difficult games along with other old millennials. I want a game that respects my time and gives me a sense of progression.

Real life is hard enough. I don't need more frustration added to a hobby that's supposed to be fun.

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.

I like roguelites but generally not soulslikes and not gonna try to convince you to like them....but reconsider some of your reasons why:

too small to be a real game,

Is Tetris a "real game"? Games aren't defined by how much unique gameplay there is

so they made it so you can never win and just have to keep trying

Plenty of roguelites are winnable?? And I'm assuming all soulslikes. Can you win in Civ6?

a game where the difficulty is only there to give people with too much time on their hands a sense of superiority.

This is literally no different than ANY other genre lol

Same for me with "deck builder".

You’re free to like / dislike whatever. As another gamer with thousands of hours, but specifically both these genres, I would say this:

1. Dark Souls as a metaphor for overcoming depression is one of the most emotionally fulfilling experiences I’ve had in my life, and this is specifically DS1. It’s a unique game, with a unique PoV, and really incredible pacing & world design for its release date.
2. I enjoy the “rogue” genre because as a gamer, it requires me to understand the game rules / mechanics and then overcome them. This genre is also very wide, so there’s games that only focus on game knowledge (auto battles or strategy, e.g. Into the Breach) or game’s that also require technical input on top of that knowledge (Binding of Isaac). Some of the best that I’ve played do a great job of making you feel smart for “breaking” the game, but that ability to break it is part of the game itself.

It’s your life, so play & enjoy what you play & enjoy. However, you’re speaking from a place of ignorance (you’ve stated you’ve never played them) & making a judgement (claims of low content, unnecessary difficulty). Doesn’t make a lot of sense of me, but whatever, unpopular opinion I guess. 🤷 GL;HF

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.

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.

Agree. I've blocked Rouguelike, Roguelite, and Deckbuilder tags on Steam.

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.

Is chess a roguelike?

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

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

Most games being called roguelikes now days should really be called Roguelites, as they tend to lack the depth, complexity, and replayability of more mature traditional roguelikes. Mileage varies. I've noticed that newer titles that have forms of permanent upgrades have more addictive gameplay loops - love Dead Cells and Hades - but they don't offer the same degree of excitement that true permadeath rls do. When a game has tens of floors of dungeon, and after many attempts that fail at floor 5-8, you're finally flying through levels 10, 11, 12, 13, and you know it can all end just like that - a very intense feeling emerges. Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup is one of my favorites for this.

For soulslikes, I've yet to play a game in this genre that has been as satisfying as FromSoft's games themselves. Been meaning to get back into Elden Ring.

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.