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
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
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.
It’s just a bad jrpg
Developers are the ones marketing it
Marketing has literally zero impact on what genre a game is.
Literally nothing but the gameplay can ever, under any circumstance, contribute to the discussion of what genre a game is.
You’ve never read the description on steam or seen an ad for a game that tells you what kind of game it is?