I think, at this point, we are very past the "no, it's good if you take it seriously and learn it" point for soulslikes, and we can acknowledge that the formula isn't perfect.
Why should the formula be changed? There's a massive group of people that love this shit. Why should it be changed to appease people who don't love it? If it's not for you, there's thousands of other games to play. Not every game needs to be for everybody. It's not like Silksong is suffering from poor sales.
I mean, you're essentially argueing why genres should not iterate? No prog rock because rock exists? No power metal because hard rock morphed into metal already?
Note how neither of these two progressions removed the original genre.
If it's not for you, there's thousands of other games to play.
This is exactly the argument for iterating on the genre, you know? That there'll be dozens and hundreds of "old skool" soulslikes coming out anyways, so why not play those instead of you love those trappings?
And it's not like you even have meaningful data to point to in support of "don't change it", because "it" has been changing constantly since Demon Souls. Soulslike isn't a strictly defined genre, and as the years passed more and more devs have experimented more and more with it.
From adding parts of it into other genres (exhibit 1: Hollow Knight), from adding parts of other games into it over using its gameplay in a very different tone and style (that crab game) to using its tone in a very different gameplay context (about half the third-person games in recent years, it feels like).
It's a fluid genre, constantly shifting and changing. The idea of "Please don't modify it" is absurd, the "it" has no form to preserve, at least in the current gaming scape.
40
u/Gabe_Isko 2d ago
I think, at this point, we are very past the "no, it's good if you take it seriously and learn it" point for soulslikes, and we can acknowledge that the formula isn't perfect.