this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
379 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
87575 readers
3768 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sure there are also plenty of games with exploration that suck, I don't think that really makes it a valid point. I can't speak to what soulslikes are, since I haven't played the original games, but a game can implement one element well and still fail at being an interesting game, which doesn't invalidate that element in any way.
Realistically, can't both combat and exploration be foundational elements of soulslike? I got the impression a big part is the way the combat works, usually involving a lot of commitment into your combat moves, with animations on attacks, dodges, heals, and multiple ways to be punished (and punish enemies), including plain damage, wasting items, wasting stamina.
There's something at the heart of them that makes them interesting. It isn't just "exploration", but a particular style of exploration, which will not fail. It isn't just boss fights with dodging, because having that alone doesn't have the heart of a Souls game. The exploration alone could, but yeah, obviously it has to be done properly, not just "exploration".
It could. I honestly don't think it is. Sekiro is also a Souls-like, and the combat is very different. I'm pretty confident you can make a good Souls-like with no combat. The combat, in my opinion, is there to give you a reason to explore. It's there to be a challenge, where exploring is the key to overcoming it. There will be items and secrets that make the combat easier if you search for it. It's not required, but you'd need something else to take the place of this.
Chants of Sennaar comes to mind of something I'd consider to capture a lot of the spirit of Souls games without combat. They're obviously very different games, but I think they share a lot. You can try to brute force your way through, but you're encouraged to explore and engage with the world, and discover it, which makes the critical path easier. This is the goal for both Souls-likes and CoS.
One thing I'll say is that Chants of Sennaar is, to my knowledge, usually compared to metroidvanias, part of a subgenre sometimes called "metroidbrainia", also known as knowledge-gated/rule-discovery puzzle games. Though it's a bit debatable in terms of how much of it is gated by knowledge, and how much is built to be mechanical progression, but the general idea holds.
I'm also not sure if you can really bruteforce your way through it, but it's been a while since I've played it.
You can't totally brute force it, but you can brute force certain words IIRC.
But yeah, it's basically a Metroidvania where combat is replaced by puzzles, but that's my point. Souls-like is just a trendy new way to say Metroidvania. I literally can't think of a functional difference between them. Every Metroidvania I think could just as well call itself a Souls-like, and vice versa, and nothing would change. I remember DS1 being called a Metroidvania originally.
The difference is almost purely aesthetic. Like I said earlier, possibly the only real distinguishing factor is RPG mechanics, but there are examples of games using either genre description with and without that, so I don't think it's required.