Jump to content

Talk:Dark Souls: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Task876 (talk | contribs)
Task876 (talk | contribs)
Line 34: Line 34:
== The overwelming majority of the From community consider Bloodborne and Elden Ring to be Souls games. It is incredibly silly for the only thing preventing a game from being a Souls game is not having the word 'Souls' in the title. ==
== The overwelming majority of the From community consider Bloodborne and Elden Ring to be Souls games. It is incredibly silly for the only thing preventing a game from being a Souls game is not having the word 'Souls' in the title. ==


Bloodborne and Elden Ring are Souls games. The large majority of the community thinks of them as such. Go find any forum relating to the 'Souls Series' and people will be discussing Bloodborne, and now Elden Ring as well. It is extremely silly to exclude them just for not having the word 'Souls' in the title. If it was called Elden Souls and the word 'rune' was replaced with 'soul' with some other word changes, but the world, overall story, gameplay etc was unchanged then Elden Ring would be in this article as a Souls game. Take a moment and think just how dumb that is that being in the series hinges off of a single word being in the title. The article is at odds with the Souls community.
Bloodborne and Elden Ring are Souls games. The large majority of the community thinks of them as such. Go find any forum relating to the 'Souls Series' and people will be discussing Bloodborne, and now Elden Ring as well. It is extremely silly to exclude them just for not having the word 'Souls' in the title. If it was called Elden Souls and the word 'rune' was replaced with 'soul' with some other word changes, but the world, overall story, gameplay etc was unchanged then Elden Ring would be in this article as a Souls game. Take a moment and think just how dumb that is that being in the series hinges off of a single word being in the title. This article is at odds with the Souls community.

Revision as of 03:24, 1 March 2022

WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

https://www.pcgamer.com/george-r-r-martin-elden-ring-is-a-sequel-to-dark-souls/

RR Martin who is one of the lead writers for Elden Ring, has said it is a sequel to Dark Souls, not a spiritual successor or related, but a sequel.

  • It's no more a Souls game than Bloodborne or Sekiro is. Martin isn't directly connected to the series other than world-building for Elden Ring, so I'd take his understanding of the games lightly. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin is still a key writer on Elden Ring and has worked with Miyazaki, why shouldn't we take his words at face value if it doesn't contradict anything presented? Miyazaki sought out Martin for "giving him the creative freedom to write the overarching backstory of the game's universe." If Martin is the one working on the games universe and he confirms that it's part of Souls and Miyazaki hasn't said anything that contradicts this, why shouldn't we take his understanding seriously? Babyclav (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit skeptical too. Is anyone else corroborating this stance? Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what Martin meant is that Elden Ring is a successor to Dark Souls just in the same way that Souls games collectively are successors to King's Field. His actual quote reads:

"I've played some videogames. I'm not a big video gamer. But the game is called the Elden Ring and it's a sequel to a game that came out a few years ago called Dark Souls and it came out of Japan."

And if we take that quote for face value, it is factually wrong because the sequel to Dark Souls is Dark Souls 2. So I honestly think he meant that Elden Ring is a sequel to Dark Souls as a series. --Osh33m (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we split "Soulslike" into its own page?

I know that there has been a lot of discussion about this being a real genre or not but considering the number of games that have been created that are similar to this series from both big publishers and indie devs, I was wondering if it's time to split this section and make it is own separate page. My main reasoning for this is not just the many different games that are similar in style but also the use of the term "Soulslike" to describe these types of games from both gamers and professional media outlets. The term has become more mainstream and is even used by developers to describe their own games. The same thing happened with the term Metroidvania where it was mainly thought of as an unofficial genre for adventure games until developers and gamers started using the term more and more. Even the producer of Metroid Dread, Yoshio Sakamoto, used the term to justify making a new 2D Metroid game after seeing the success of so many Metroidvania games. I think that the genre has come to a point where it is legitimate now and deserves its own dedicated entry. What do you guys think? Terence0709 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't split out articles just because they've become "legitimate", we only do that for size and scope reasons. At this time there would be no real benefit to having a standalone article since nearly all of what we'd write about it fits nicely here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not now it works. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the discussion opener is a blocked sock. Besides socking, their block is partially due to improper splits and disruption in relation to. -- ferret (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The overwelming majority of the From community consider Bloodborne and Elden Ring to be Souls games. It is incredibly silly for the only thing preventing a game from being a Souls game is not having the word 'Souls' in the title.

Bloodborne and Elden Ring are Souls games. The large majority of the community thinks of them as such. Go find any forum relating to the 'Souls Series' and people will be discussing Bloodborne, and now Elden Ring as well. It is extremely silly to exclude them just for not having the word 'Souls' in the title. If it was called Elden Souls and the word 'rune' was replaced with 'soul' with some other word changes, but the world, overall story, gameplay etc was unchanged then Elden Ring would be in this article as a Souls game. Take a moment and think just how dumb that is that being in the series hinges off of a single word being in the title. This article is at odds with the Souls community.