Would you call Soul series/Bloodborne revolutionary in rpg genre?

I haven't played Bloodborne yet, BUT yeah Demons Souls was definately revolutionary in its time for being brutally challenging yet satisfying and rewarding, co op/ pvp integration, music, level and creature designs.

Would you call Soul series/Bloodborne revolutionary in rpg genre warriors?

Was definitely a breath of fresh air, not just for jrpgs, but for gaming in general. Demons Souls shattered my expectations of modern gaming and Dark Souls was an excellent follow up. I don't know if I'd say revolutionary, but they sure as shit left their mark.

Perhaps not - revolutionary is a big word.

The Souls games are very slick action RPGs, but in terms of "exploring a brutally difficult world where everything can kill you unless you pay attention"...well, the Gothic series has been doing that for years.

The multiplayer aspects are innovative for RPGs, and the gameplay features are of unusually high quality. Still, I wouldn't call it revolutionary - especially since I can only think of one imitator so far.

Nope , dunno about bloodborne but I call soul series boring

there were games like those on the PS1 you know. Dark Souls kind of games are nothing new except for maybe the pvp side about invasion and stuff.

Oh and how to forget about those Tower of Druaga games from the 80's. That's from where Souls series comes from.

Revolution would imply that there are loads of games copying the mechanics or ideas in the game, that's simply not the case. It's more of an evolution rather than a revolution.

Not revolutionary. But satisfactory to the point of perfection.

Absolutely.

No, its just borrows everything from Zelda.

The original Demon's Souls- absolutely.

Everything since then has been an iteration.

Other than the multiplayer system there's nothing super revolutionary, it's just extremely high quality game design. The gameplay mechanics, art, music, level design, and basically every single element of the games are polished to a mirror sheen. They're games for gamers. Most RPGs these days, like Skyrim or Dragon Age, are games for casuals. Dark Souls is the real deal, for people who wanna spend their time playing a game tailored for core players.

This is just an ignorant statement. Souls borrows heavily from Castlevania the most. It doesn't have much in common with the Zelda formula. Have you played these games?

Total control combat, uses potions button and items buttons, open type compact world, has weird evil merchant, epic big boss fights, shield button, can bust out bow. Dodge button. Get weird clues, breaking pots. Enemies invade from other worlds, secrets everywhere, combat require patience and studying opponent, unique Boss patterns, have to farm for rupees/souls. upgrading weapons is very important. And many more things.

Sorry... Do you think that Zelda invented...

Using potions? "Epic boss fights"? "Open type compact world" (whatever that's supposed to mean? Using a bow or shields?

These things have been RPG staples since first edition Dungeons and Dragons in the 1970s. They've been in video games since the earliest CRPGs like Ultima, stuff that predates Zelda.

I love Zelda but let's not get ridiculous here. Zelda has a very specific formula and style of progression that Dark Souls does not have. Okami borrows heavily from Zelda. Darksiders borrows heavily from Zelda. Dark Souls absolutely does not.

Like, come on mate. Seriously.

Yeah? Zelda implemented all these things together and continues to evolve the formula. Not just using bow and shields, its has dedicated on the fly buttons for them. Zelda is Dark Souls father ;) The creator was inspired by Zelda.

To me Dark Souls is not an RPG, its an action adventure just like Zelda.

You're not serious right now, are you?

Your level of delusion is staggering. I literally just mentioned two games that did all of those things together before Zelda and your response is just "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA."

Was not a revolution in the slightest, but the style of PvP in Demon's Souls (and later Souls games) sure as hell was a fresh idea for gaming. And the method of storytelling was also incredibly awesome.

It's quite unfortunate that the franchise has nearly become a yearly rehash at this point. It really should have been a "one and done" kind of thing. Demon's Souls was unique, Dark Souls was unique and Bloodborne was unique.

All had the same foundation but built a different house atop it.

I still can't for the life of me get into Dark Souls II and have zero interest in Dark Souls III.

Sorry, i dont follow, Zelda did all these things together. Same as Dark Souls does all these things together. Are you saying the games you named are like Zelda?

I've played Souls and its awesome, but its not revolutionary. Rewarding Soul crushing games have been around forever. It just seems that Bloodborne and Souls are bringing them out of being niche.

This might be the most asinine argument I have ever seen.

No, it took elements from other games and put them all together in a nice package. It is like Half-Life and Halo in a lot of ways.

A breath of fresh air is the more appropriate description. Revolutionary would at the very least mean bringing big changes to the entire genre. Other RPGs would start taking key elements from the game, and lots of Soul-like games would start spawning. The Souls series have not done anything remotely close to that.

Some examples of revolutionary elements that are now commonplace in the industry include:

• Ingame story elements in FPS games.
• Choices with consequences in RPG.
• Sandbox environment in third-person action games.

A Japanese company makes a hack n slash franchise with a couple of RPG elements and suddenly it is a JRPG series? And on top of that it is heralded as being "revolutionary" ? That makes no sense at all.

Weres lulu now a days ?

I actaully agree with lulus opinion of souls games

@indzman: Depends.

haha you can't be serious. All the Soul games have issues with frame-rate and in the case of Blighttown there are some serious issues with level design in these games.

@indzman: can't agree because I have played games that were as you called it, "brutally challenging" long before demons soul's. They just caught lightening in a bottle. The right thing at the right time. But it wasn't new or innovative in any sense.

There's a huge difference between selecting a potion/bow/shield in a turn-based battle system, and implementing a potion/bow/shield with their own individual gameplay mechanics and game physics in a real-time hack & slash action combat system. Those are two completely different ball parks.

Demon's Souls and how it did the online stuff was absolutely cutting edge stuff, the framework was a dungeon crawler (an extremely well executed one), but the online stuff is the innovative stuff that really gave that game and the series its impact.

Bloodborne does a lot of the core aspects of Dark Souls right, but the online stuff went backwards with that game it felt like.

Only in terms of it creating a style if game for itself, the developers, the series, though hardly revolutionary in the sense it had others following their example. They're at like what? Six games so far, Demons Souls, two Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3 coming. And what's followed in their wake? One Lords of the Fallen game so far, good but no sequel yet, and one unrealized free-to-play pay-to-win game Deep Down which might be a Nippon only release, that's IF it releases.

But again, revolutionary in making what they did, a very unconventional JRPGS that looks much like a WRPG plays very unique and whose market has very little competition, and a stoke fan base promises it'll be around for some time.

Revolutionary? No. But something different? Sure. I will say the idea of players leaving behind note for players that can be useful or crap was an interesting idea but the rest of the game is just Zelda but harder and clunker to play.

Not really. Its just monster hunter combat in a standard RPG format.

Of course. What other game had an invasion system before demons souls? look at how many games have it now.

The following games are known to have been inspired by Dark Souls: Destiny, Alienation, Lords of the Fallen, Salt and Sanctuary, Shovel Knight, and Titan Souls.

CD Project said Demon's Souls & Dark Souls inspired the combat systems of The Witcher 2 & 3. Journey's online gameplay was also inspired by Dark Souls.

But most curiously of all, Souls inspired the PS4's online features. According to Broshida:

"I was checking out YouTube videos of people playing the game because this game is perfect to learn from other players how to attack the same situation with very different strategies," he said. "Lots of things that Demon's Souls and Dark Souls did [like] leaving the messages to other people asynchronously - so you feel connected, but not really connected at the same time - all of these things inspired us when we were designing the system features for PS4."

World Of Warcraft.

When did WoW add such a feature? Because I certainly don't remember anything like that when I played it years ago.

@Jag85: The Wii U's Miiverse was also a direct riff on Dark Souls' messaging system.

World Of Warcraft separated into friendly, neutral and enemy territory without the need for players to load in due to it being an almost entirely seamless world. Invasions range from 1 to 100's.
.

Well..revolutionary how? Was it full of brand new ideas? No. Was it hugely influential? Well..also no.

So to answer that question - no, it wasn't revolutionary

nope. I gave demon soul a fair chance and I just find it boring. Many will not agree with me, but I find that dragon's dogma dark arisen is a million times better than the soul series

Demon's Souls was a revolutionary game. There really wasn't anything like it at the time it released. Unfortunately, the game isn't very good.

Absolutely. Although it started with FromSoft's King's Field, but no one played that.

Dark Souls/Demon Souls absolutely are revolutionary. Undeniable now- it's not niche bullshit anymore. It's become a big and influential franchise.

I love Fromsoft.

You've either never played a 'Souls game or you've never played a Zelda game.

@skektek: Why you say that? What does it do different?

Revolutionary is too heavy a phrase, I think, but I would definitely call them refreshing and different from what's popular. The problem with revolutionary is I can't see its mechanics influencing generations of games to come. But then again, I could be wrong.

Revolutionary? No. As someone said before, it was definitely a breath of fresh air.

@indzman: somewhat unique and refreshing , yes. Revolutionary ? Naaah. Nevertheless , top notch series.