You've all heard the terms. Souls-like, Rogue-lite, Doom-clone, terms that are used synomously when describing games that heavily feature elements of previously know games. Often times it's used as a mark against a given game, like when the Tomb Raider reboots got flak for "trying to be Uncharted". Other times it's a quick and easy (lazy) way to explain what a new game is to someone. "What's the new XXX-game like?", "Oh it's a Souls-like".
Immediately calling a game a Souls-like generally conveys to people a baseline of what the game is like. And any of these terms can be used in the same fashion. But what is the reason?
I believe it has to do with derivative design. Gaming is a very incestuous industry and developers are constantly stealing other people's ideas and putting it into their own games. This leads to games feeling very similiar for a certain period of time with slight changes, until at some point one of these changes leads to a total shake up of the genre and everything pivots with this change. Sometimes this is a game design change, or a mechanical change like what Dark Souls did by reintroducing difficulty into games in an age where everything was become too easy (arguably). Other times it's a technological change, like when Mario 64 revolutionized platform games. Mario 64 wasn't different conceptually from side scrolling Mario games, but the 3D allowed that platforming to expand in such a way that tons of games followed suit.
The real point I was to make is that this derivative evolution of gaming is not important. Too often people get mad at X-game because it was too much like A-Game. But fundamentally they miss the point of game design. Was it fun? Let's take a look at two games that try to do the same thing, one is a shining example of what it tries to do and the other game tried to copy that but failed and nobody remembers.
God of War and Heavenly Sword. Both of these games on the surface are pretty much the same thing, 3D action brawlers with an emphasis on brutality in the combat. Kratos is a monster in the player's hands, tearing creatures apart right and left and the game is a stunning example of action combat done right. Whereas Heavenly Sword features an angry lady, also with twin weapons, and is also a 3D action brawler. Heavenly Sword featuers everything that God of War does, but why was it seen as bad when it's the same game basically? This comes from trying to take the same ideas and doing them incorrectly.
It's like baking a cake. If you follow the directions you'll make a fantastic cake. You an edit the extras, flavor, sprinkles, icing, etc, but the core of what you bake and how must always be the same. However if you just glance at the ingrediants but don't follow the directions because you think you know better, then you'll end up with a mess. And that's what happens with games. Why is Dark Souls good, but The Surge is a mess? It's all about directions, and following the directions is how you get a good game.
This is why we always get era's for games. The Modern shooter era, The every main character uses a bow era, whatever.
But ultimately the point I'm trying to make is that designing a game to be like another game is fine, so long as you also follow the directions. The Tomb Raider reboots are Uncharted except with a different flavor of icing, however the first Reboot game followed the directions. So either way you still get a tastey cake, just strawberry versus pound cake. In my viewpoint I think this is a fine way to make games. There is talk about how Sony's games are always the same single player 3rd person action type of thing, but to me that's a good thing. When you go to a restuarant for burgers, you expect a good burger everytime you go there, if one day you go there expecting a burger and you get a shrimp pasta even if the shrimp pasta is good, it will never be as good as the burger you wanted. Much the same way we go to different restaurants for different food experiences, do we also look to game devs for specific things.
If Elden Ring came out and it was just a Dark Fantasy open world game with a casual combat system and more Zelda-like mechanics, people would be fucking pissed. Even if the game was really good regardless it wouldn't matter because it isn't what people wanted from Miyazaki. Instead Elden Ring is Dark Souls again but bigger. It's an open world that is very derivative of other open world games, but Miyazaki added his own flavor to it, so even though it's just a cake, it's a good tasting cake.
Flavor is what makes games stand out, not the cake they are built from. i may have rambled a bit here, but I hope ya'll see what I've trying to say.
Immediately calling a game a Souls-like generally conveys to people a baseline of what the game is like. And any of these terms can be used in the same fashion. But what is the reason?
I believe it has to do with derivative design. Gaming is a very incestuous industry and developers are constantly stealing other people's ideas and putting it into their own games. This leads to games feeling very similiar for a certain period of time with slight changes, until at some point one of these changes leads to a total shake up of the genre and everything pivots with this change. Sometimes this is a game design change, or a mechanical change like what Dark Souls did by reintroducing difficulty into games in an age where everything was become too easy (arguably). Other times it's a technological change, like when Mario 64 revolutionized platform games. Mario 64 wasn't different conceptually from side scrolling Mario games, but the 3D allowed that platforming to expand in such a way that tons of games followed suit.
The real point I was to make is that this derivative evolution of gaming is not important. Too often people get mad at X-game because it was too much like A-Game. But fundamentally they miss the point of game design. Was it fun? Let's take a look at two games that try to do the same thing, one is a shining example of what it tries to do and the other game tried to copy that but failed and nobody remembers.
God of War and Heavenly Sword. Both of these games on the surface are pretty much the same thing, 3D action brawlers with an emphasis on brutality in the combat. Kratos is a monster in the player's hands, tearing creatures apart right and left and the game is a stunning example of action combat done right. Whereas Heavenly Sword features an angry lady, also with twin weapons, and is also a 3D action brawler. Heavenly Sword featuers everything that God of War does, but why was it seen as bad when it's the same game basically? This comes from trying to take the same ideas and doing them incorrectly.
It's like baking a cake. If you follow the directions you'll make a fantastic cake. You an edit the extras, flavor, sprinkles, icing, etc, but the core of what you bake and how must always be the same. However if you just glance at the ingrediants but don't follow the directions because you think you know better, then you'll end up with a mess. And that's what happens with games. Why is Dark Souls good, but The Surge is a mess? It's all about directions, and following the directions is how you get a good game.
This is why we always get era's for games. The Modern shooter era, The every main character uses a bow era, whatever.
But ultimately the point I'm trying to make is that designing a game to be like another game is fine, so long as you also follow the directions. The Tomb Raider reboots are Uncharted except with a different flavor of icing, however the first Reboot game followed the directions. So either way you still get a tastey cake, just strawberry versus pound cake. In my viewpoint I think this is a fine way to make games. There is talk about how Sony's games are always the same single player 3rd person action type of thing, but to me that's a good thing. When you go to a restuarant for burgers, you expect a good burger everytime you go there, if one day you go there expecting a burger and you get a shrimp pasta even if the shrimp pasta is good, it will never be as good as the burger you wanted. Much the same way we go to different restaurants for different food experiences, do we also look to game devs for specific things.
If Elden Ring came out and it was just a Dark Fantasy open world game with a casual combat system and more Zelda-like mechanics, people would be fucking pissed. Even if the game was really good regardless it wouldn't matter because it isn't what people wanted from Miyazaki. Instead Elden Ring is Dark Souls again but bigger. It's an open world that is very derivative of other open world games, but Miyazaki added his own flavor to it, so even though it's just a cake, it's a good tasting cake.
Flavor is what makes games stand out, not the cake they are built from. i may have rambled a bit here, but I hope ya'll see what I've trying to say.
