Games as a service has never once resulted in high quality, well designed and polished content. The incentives are too broken. It is not capable of doing so. The model inherently removes the time required to do the bare minimum.
If every frame isn’t carefully considered, it is not a souls like. The entire definition of the genre is built around deliberately approaching enemies that are extremely polished mechanically. There are some cases where the windows to act are small, but if you’re frame perfect, you will always win. Games as a service effectively guarantees that there isn’t time to ensure that consistent behavior, making it something entirely different.
They very clearly are ARPGs. Not all ARPGs are Diablo clones with isometric graphics and big showy splash damage.
What distinguishes souls-likes from other ARPGs with similar gear and stat mechanics is the fact that your skill level is a core element of progression. Carefully designed enemies define a souls like. Calling a game without them a souls like is like calling a game without realistic physics a racing sim. It doesn’t matter what the developer’s intent is. If your physics are arcade-y, you’re not a racing sim. You’re just a racing game.
You don’t sound like you are coming from a developer background
If I pitch a game as an ARPG people are going to assume a soulslike - simple combat where you wait for an attack then parry/dodge and hit back then repeat until the fight is over
All that matters is the developer’s intent
In your example it is still a racing sim, just a bad one
Learning enemies is the core gameplay loop of a souls like.
Content churn is antithetical to everything the genre stands for.
Wouldn’t a stream of new enemies lean more into that core gameplay loop because you’re constantly learning rather than only when you first played?
Absolutely not.
Games as a service has never once resulted in high quality, well designed and polished content. The incentives are too broken. It is not capable of doing so. The model inherently removes the time required to do the bare minimum.
If every frame isn’t carefully considered, it is not a souls like. The entire definition of the genre is built around deliberately approaching enemies that are extremely polished mechanically. There are some cases where the windows to act are small, but if you’re frame perfect, you will always win. Games as a service effectively guarantees that there isn’t time to ensure that consistent behavior, making it something entirely different.
People seem to like them
Insert any MMO
LoL/DOTA
Apex Legends
Fortnite
Your definition of “game has to be good to be in this genre” doesn’t hold water
The defining trait of the genre is polished, deliberate combat.
Without that it’s just a generic ARPG.
Yes ARPG is how the industry refers to Soulslike
They very clearly are ARPGs. Not all ARPGs are Diablo clones with isometric graphics and big showy splash damage.
What distinguishes souls-likes from other ARPGs with similar gear and stat mechanics is the fact that your skill level is a core element of progression. Carefully designed enemies define a souls like. Calling a game without them a souls like is like calling a game without realistic physics a racing sim. It doesn’t matter what the developer’s intent is. If your physics are arcade-y, you’re not a racing sim. You’re just a racing game.
You don’t sound like you are coming from a developer background
If I pitch a game as an ARPG people are going to assume a soulslike - simple combat where you wait for an attack then parry/dodge and hit back then repeat until the fight is over
All that matters is the developer’s intent
In your example it is still a racing sim, just a bad one
I am, and you’re wrong.
Developers can say anything they want. Genre is defined exclusively by players and how they experience the end result. Players label games.
If a developer makes Doom and calls it a JRPG, they’re wrong regardless of what their design goals were.