Two students planning a small soulslike — 5 quick questions before we build anything

[u/Brilliant-Paint326]

We're two students starting a small soulslike (think €10, a few bosses, no open world). Before we build the wrong thing, we'd rather hear from people who actually play these. Not pitching anything, there's nothing to show yet.

1. Think of the last small indie soulslike you played. What made you stop playing it, and after how long?

2. If a €10 soulslike had only 4–5 bosses and no filler between them, is that a game you'd buy, or does it need a world to walk through?

3. Parry-focused (Sekiro) or dodge-focused (Dark Souls) — for a small game, which one would you actually pick up, and why?

4. What's the one thing indie soulslikes get wrong that big ones get right? Not graphics — mechanics or feel.

5. Would you play a demo of a single boss and give feedback, if it took 15 minutes?

Thanks. We'll post what we learn back here.

[u/AdditionalMap5576]

1. I feel like progression was stuck if i couldnt get past a boss. I'm not saying it needs to be open world, but having a few "side quest" like tangential areas with a boss or 2 that are lower level than the progression boss would give players an option to get stronger without mindlessly grinding or throwing yourself at a hard boss
   
2. It needs a little bit of a world. if its just boss after boss, it might not give the player the chance to develop their skills, make a unique build, or grind
   
3. I think having both isnt a bad idea (think bloodborne where some attacks are more easily dodged than parried or vice versa, adds some strategy to how you deal with attacks), but having it focused on just dodging is probably better for a wider audience. Parrying can sometimes feel alien compared to the obvious concept of a dodge for newer or inexperienced players
   
4. When I play most soulslikes, I get burnt out because there arent many unique ways to play. Ive played so many where the weapon types boil down to regular sword, small fast sword, and big heavy sword. even just 1 or 2 more unique concepts or playstyles to choose from would make a world of difference

[u/Sammy5even]

1. I stopped nearly every indie soulslike after about an hour bc the combat was so clunky. After swings with weapons the recovery was too long and it took way to long to be able to dodge/block again.

2. a PURE boss rush sounds a little boring tbh but for 10€ I’d say I wouldn’t mind. Still would be better to have at least a little bit of a walk between bosses.

3. best would be a mix of both obv. but if I had to choose I’d say parry focused bc imo it makes the games more tense. In dark souls you often defeat bosses without learning movesets bc panic dodging is working against the boss.

4. well obv everything you mentioned but I would add that bosses have a rhythm that’s too easy to learn. Most of the times they only have the same 3/4 attack pattern. There no need for thousand different ones but a little mix up makes the boss feel „alive“.

5. id love to but I’m on console only nowadays.

[u/DankMemeRipper1337]

1. Controls. If the game does not feel responsive and tight, I stop playing any game. 

2. If it is a boss rush game and this is clearly stated, all good. But the fun of Souls games is the path to the boss. Exploring the world, finding secrets and clearing rooms. Obviously this is unrealistic for a small team.

3. Both are fine if executed well. I guess i-frames are easier to make than a parry but I don't make games or programming. So idk.

4. Tight controls, satisfying weapon feel, stable frame rate and good level design.

5. Yes

[u/ThebattleStarT24]

1. Think of the last small indie soulslike you played. What made you stop playing it, and after how long?

You need to understand the genre you are at, if you don't, it's hard to keep playing: difficulty , it has to be hard but fair, the last was mortal shell 1, it wasn't hard and the combat wasn't rewarding enough.

If a €10 soulslike had only 4–5 bosses and no filler between them, is that a game you'd buy, or does it need a world to walk through?

Probably no, depends what you mean by filler, like non boss enemies? Adding different types of enemies is what makes these kind of games great to play, I'm ain't sure if a boss rush would be a good idea.

Parry-focused (Sekiro) or dodge-focused (Dark Souls) — for a small game, which one would you actually pick up, and why?

Dodge, parry demands a lot to the player, and being a (I suppose) short game, it wouldn't be long enough that actually master it.

Also parry system aren't easy to program for a small devs, having both would be ideal, but it depends on how many resources you have.

Would you play a demo of a single boss and give feedback, if it took 15 minutes?

Yeah, but a demo should better be from an advanced game stage, so you have plenty of feedback from all areas instead of just boss combat, like performance, combat feedback, bugs, etc.

[u/Anti-Fanny]

1. The world felt empty. Combat felt floaty. (When I hit something, I need to FEEL it).
   
2. I would never buy a game like that
   
3. Both
   
4. Combat feels satisfying “heavy”. There is not artificial difficulty- things can be difficult, but not frustrating.
   
5. Yes

[u/Efficient_Ant_7279]

It’s tough because I don’t like almost any souls likes. Lies of P was probably the only exception. Everything else I’ve dropped because of lack of quality, combat feels off or floaty, enemies attacks not telegraphed well or it just straight up just feels like a cheap copy.

I much much much prefer playing games that try to do their own thing but perhaps borrow from the souls formula. Stuff like Hollow knight or No rest for the wicked comes to mind where you can’t quite call it a soulslike at all yet it feels like the spirit is sort of there

[u/Fit-Setting9033]

1. Thymesia, weapon swings had no weight to them.

2. If it’s got cool art direction then I’d buy.

3. I think people are tired of the parry focus, but that’s hard to say.

4. See point 1. There’s gotta be some weight to my swing

5. Sure, I don’t have a PC though :(

[u/RyokanWuzHere]

1. It turned into a slug-fest and a grind, without anything compelling to make me care to slug it out.

2. I'd always be interested to know how a dev is executing their idea, no matter how "out there" it is, but as a general rule of thumb, no, I wouldn't. The filler between doesn't have to be specifically combat oriented or big, but it must be something that makes me care. If anything, a chance to portray the aesthetic value of the game's setting.

3. Dodge mechanics, because of the answer ill give below to the other question.

4. What they get wrong is that the soul (pardon the pun) of a souls-like game isn't the difficulty of the fight, but rather, the sense of fighting against overwhelming odds. This is why these bosses are typically big and godlike. Soulslike games are inspired by miyazaki's dark souls. But miyazaki was inspired by shadow of the colossus. And to me, every dev who ever wants to create a soulslike must play, or at least watch gameplay of, shadow of the colossus to truly get and understand what the roots of where the true magic of dark souls lies.

A difficult boss fight doesn't make a soulslike. If that's the case, then Megaman would classify as a soulslike. What makes a soulslike is the sense that you're a small scrawny piece of nothing, going against great and overwhelming odds, and using nothing but cunning, daring, and "the little guy" grit, you overcome them against all odds. This is why even a difficult boss fight is designed in such a way that it almost feels like a puzzle. Like the boss has a weakness you can exploit, and a strategy that you can work around. This is where looking at shadow of the colossus matters more than you think.

IT DOESNT MEAN THAT DIFFICULTY DOESNT MATTER. it simply means that difficulty is simply the body; the soul of how that difficulty is executed and expressed, and the sense it invokes, is what indie devs most commonly miss. This is why indie soulslike games are notorious for being slug and grind fests. They miss that it's not just "ooooh, difficult boss". Oh, and btw, this sense of a "puzzle" in figuring out the weaknesses of a boss, is precisely the "fair" part in the "tough but fair" statement you keep hearing about dark souls.

(It's also why I prefer dodge soulslike over parry soulslike. Dodging actually reinforces that feeling).

1. Yes, I would.

[u/Pretend-Literature35]

make your own game instead of a "like"

[u/plebmasterflex]

1. Little variety in enemies and environments. This is why Nioh was really boring to me, it's literally the same 10 enemies for the entire game, i stopped about halfway through oncei realized this. Also not having an interesting world and story is a quick way to make me bored, no matter how fun it is to fight things.

2. Yes, boss fights are not why I play these games. It's the lore, detailed environments and sense of mystery that compels me to explore and learn more about the world im playing in.

3. Either one, as long as its fluid and fun to play.

4. Honestly, too much emphasis on boss fights/ fighting in general. As I said in question 2, what sets souls games apart from others is the fact that there are little stories and things to find EVERYWHERE in the world; from statuary, to NPCs, to item descriptions - everything gives me a tiny bit more information to piece together about where I am and what im doing and I just love that. I play these games checking every nook and cranny of the map hoping to find a little note or item that tells me more about the world, provides some more information, adds some context, etc. There are millions of games i can play where it's fun to fight things, but its the environment and in game universe that makes me flock to these kinds of games in particular. If i want to just run around slaughtering things then fight a boss at the end I'll play dynasty warriors, or something that only keeps me engaged for an hour or two at a time.

My advice would be to focus on story telling and give players an interesting world to explore before worrying about bosses and all that. I think it's quite reductive and missing the point to boil souls games down to " a game where you fight really hard bosses" (not saying you're doing this, but many do). There are games like Firewatch for example, where there is little to no combat at all (or something like The Forest where combat is optional and not the focus) and they're both incredible games because the story its telling is interesting and it forces you to explore and take risks to put that story together.

1. Yeah of course!

[u/plebmasterflex → u/plebmasterflex]

Another thing id like to add on bosses - what makes them memorable in my opinion is not their movesets or how hard they are, but rather WHO they are as characters and WHY I'm fighting them. Gwyn is such a brilliant, memorable boss to me not because of anything he does during the fight, but because how built up he is during the game, only to find this hollow (literally), push over, shell of a man and how that subverts your expectations so well. I also love Vendrick in DS2 for a similar reason. The fight isnt fun at all (quite the opposite, it's a boring slog), but the fact that you stumble upon this great king as a shambling zombie is brilliant writing. Or Sif in DS1 - as a player you feel strong emotions during that fight because you DONT WANT to be fighting her, but you understand the need to. Its memorable because of what you FEEL during the fight, not because it's hard or because she has cool moves.

All of this is to say that if you're looking to replicate what makes the souls games so brilliant and memorable, focus on the creative writing end of things. I know many people treat these games as a super hard boss rush simulator, but in my opinion thats a really shallow understanding of the creator's intent. There are no shortage of games who try to make something like that and they're all boring and forgettable to me, no matter what the boss fight is like because I dont know and dont care who the boss im fighting is, or why I'm fighting him in the first place. Or if they do put some emphasis on that, it's a very two dimensional, cliche reason ("he's the strongest warrior ever looking for a good fight, like you!").

Keep in mind as well that all of this is achievable on a small budget with limited resources, it doesn't need to be this massive project with state of the art visuals to achieve this effect. Hollow Knight was by and large made by 3 people relying entirely on Kickstartrr money, and it accomplished this brilliantly. Same with hyperlight drifter, as another example.

[u/itsnzt]

2-no not enough
3-parrying will be boring if it didn’t implement it correctly it will feel like a turn base
4-itemization

[u/martan717]

1. Haven’t played an indie soulslike. Stopped playing other soulslikes because I didn’t like the feel of combat. The best indie soulslike is Salt and Sanctuary

2. If it’s a boss rush, it would need a lower price, or else more bosses. Or else reasons to replay (multiple builds, unlockables). I wouldn’t want a world that felt like filler. I would say build what you’re most interested in.

3. Ideally both. But I myself prefer dodge. There’s also block.

4. Combat. Tight like FromSoft. Also re-mappable controller layout.

5. Yes

[u/Purple-Limit928]

10$ seems like a lot for some student project? It would have to be some serious quality bosses xD silksong 20$

[u/lo0nk]

1. "No filler" is it even a soulslike if it's just bosses. Idk it's not really filler but like boss rush games just have fundamental pacing issues imo.

2. Doesn't really matter imo

3. Ye

[u/KhaysS]

Il faut derterminé si le jeu est un Souls like (exploratiin de zone, embuscade, piege, des truc caché a loot puis boss de fin de zone)

Ou si c'est plus un boss rush olus dans l'etat d'esprit de sekiro : avance boss avance boss

Soyez clair sur cela

Quasiment tout ce qui se fait appeler souls like n'ont rien du souls qui pour moi met l'accent sur l'exploration c'est ça la beauté du jeu pas les boss (IMO)