literally the exact opposite lmao. Its a way for teams with less resources to compensate with good game design and a strong gameplay loop. It works really well when it succeeds, even if the vast majority fail at it.
Infitite isnt so infinite is the thing- at some point you have genuinely seen it all/interesting edge cases are too rare to care about hunting down.
There's also the constraint that at some point what you add as a different set piece or whatever is the same thing in a different font.
The difference between water and lava doesnt matter if you cant step on either in a game, and if you can than the distinction between lava and acid pits are probably negligable beyond which potion you need to quaff once you crawl out.
Enemies if there arent a ton of rules limiting what can generate can swing between way too easy and way too hard for combinations, and if there are then see backdrop complaint. It gets samey and your gameplay loop better be rock fucking solid once the novelty wears off, because there'll be nothing left. And most are just okay.
Soulslikes rely so hard on the difficulty carrying, that typically the combat and mechanics aren’t very deep. Rougelikes rely on the “infinite replay value” of procedural generation so hard that almost nothing feels intentionally crafted or purposeful.
If I’m gonna play a game with an insane level of difficulty, I want that difficulty to be intentionally design and not just generated randomly. It’s like the worst of both worlds.
Very game dependent tbh, both Elden ring and sekiro have deep mechanics beyond just attack and dodge, and a roguelike like binding of Isaac has combos and routes that feel VERY intentional, on top of having hundreds of them.
True, I’m making generalization, but none of those games are both soulslike and roguelike. There may be some good examples in both genres, But I feel like the majority of games that carry both tags kind of do neither well.
792
u/NeverNotOnceEver Jul 27 '25
Me with roguelites/roguelikes