Is the Souls series the grownup Zelda?

[bartholen_v1legacy]

3rd person fantasy action game? Check
Vaguely defined story that has you collecting a specific number of something important that often takes a backseat to the gameplay? Check
Somewhat linear progression through a semi-open world with lots of variety in scenery? Check
A world that rewards exploration and finding hidden areas, characters and secrets? Check
Finding specific items to upgrade your most vital tools (Estus flask shards vs. pieces of heart)? Check
Heavy emphasis on boss fights being the main event? Check
Going through a whole lot of castles, caves and temples? Check
Combat with a wide variety of enemy types using melee, ranged and magical attacks? Check
Copious amounts of smashing pots? Triple check

All it would take, IMO, is for the Souls games to add lots of puzzles, and Zelda to add more equipment variety, and the two would almost become interchangeable. I haven't really seen this thought being mentioned in many places.

What do you think? Can we stop clamoring for the "adult" Zelda game now that we have FromSoft's output?

 

[SweetShark]

I would love to say yes, but even if I didn't played a 3D Zelda game before [only 1-2 2D games], I think the major difference are the abilities Link take in his journey. Dark/Demon Souls? None. You are just you and the weapons/armor/magic you get along the way to defeat your enemies and also you don't need a specific item to reach an area.

Spoiler: spoiler for Dark Souls 1

Except the one time you wanted a ring to see some kind of ghosts to fight them. But that it.

Also, the story in Dark Souls aren't the main focus. Even if you don't know jack about the lore and the people around it [like me] you just know only the important things you must do. You are the Chosen Undead and you must defeat the original Dragon Slayers and get a flame.
In Zelda games the story is IMPORTANT. Even if you don't care about the story, the game want to make you to care at some point, or to be more specific, always.
Dark Souls don't give a Flying Rat from Shovel Knight F*ck if you care or not.

But I will admit, a more adult/gorier take a colourful fantasy world would be nice.
However the developers must make sure not name it Zelda or something similar. The hardcore fans will flip their pots from their anger.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

...and also you don't need a specific item to reach an area.

Spoiler: spoiler for Dark Souls 1

Except the one time you wanted a ring to see some kind of ghosts to fight them. But that it.

Not true. In Dark Souls 2 alone you need the four Greatsouls, The Giants' kinship, the Ashen Mist Heart, the Soldier Key and the King's Ring among others. In Dark Souls there's the Lordvessel, the Key to the Seal, the Covenant of Artorias and the Lava Ring at least. I think the only game in the series where you truly don't need any items per se is Demon's Souls, if only because its structure is much more fragmented instead of one world.

Also, if you're talking about the ghosts in New Londo in that spoiler, you don't need a ring for that, just the Transient Curse.

 

[Aerosteam]

Zelda lacks RPG elements and Dark Souls lacks puzzles, both are big gameplay things in the other franchise so I'd say no.

In Dark Souls 2 alone you need the four Greatsouls, The Giants' kinship, the Ashen Mist Heart, the Soldier Key and the King's Ring among others. In Dark Souls there's the Lordvessel, the Key to the Seal, the Covenant of Artorias and the Lava Ring at least.

All those do is open doors and allow you to walk somewhere, so they're just regular quest progression items. They hardly compare to Zelda items like the hookshot or boomerang.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

All those do is open doors and allow you to walk somewhere, so they're just regular quest progression items. They hardly compare to Zelda items like the hookshot or boomerang.

Oh okay then. It's just that the word "item" covers both usable equipment and passive key items. But if that's what it was about, I stand corrected.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

...and also you don't need a specific item to reach an area.

Spoiler: spoiler for Dark Souls 1

Except the one time you wanted a ring to see some kind of ghosts to fight them. But that it.

Not true. In Dark Souls 2 alone you need the four Greatsouls, The Giants' kinship, the Ashen Mist Heart, the Soldier Key and the King's Ring among others. In Dark Souls there's the Lordvessel, the Key to the Seal, the Covenant of Artorias and the Lava Ring at least. I think the only game in the series where you truly don't need any items per se is Demon's Souls, if only because its structure is much more fragmented instead of one world.

Also, if you're talking about the ghosts in New Londo in that spoiler, you don't need a ring for that, just the Transient Curse.

They meant the Four Kings, you need the Covenant of Artorias (which you knew since you cited it but as there was confusion).

OT: It's... difficult to reconcile the differences.

Zelda is an adventure game but it's not really about the same things as the Souls games. You beat X dungeons to get a sword, use ONLY that sword plus equipment as it becomes relevant to clear the game and the story is very much about the sword as much as it is Link.

Souls by comparison is about using what you can and who you are reflects how you build it. Link's never going to be a straight up mage, or a tank and it's not particularly easy to make him a straight archer. Link never has a 'build' and his equipment is part of him, not just the 'means to an end' souls game equipment is.

The chosen undead is a nobody by design, Link is always the Hero.

What they DO have in common is a cyclical narrative which is the biggest common factor to my mind. Zelda is all about the cycles of Link/Zelda/Ganon and Souls is all about the cycle of the flame so in a sense they really are similar. Just in Souls terms you're Ganon in that you're always going to get shat on no matter how you do.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Its more akin to a 3D version of the old Ninja Gaiden platformers from the early 90s.
You know its just hard...and that's kinda it.
They're simply hard trial/error games.

 

[Azure23]

I've seen it lauded elsewhere as modern takes on the castlevania series. I'd be more inclined to agree with that based on art style and monster design. But obviously it's not a perfect comparison for either. It's a very niche game, so much so that it's almost become a genre into itself, see other "soulslikes" such as Hollow Knight, Salt and Sanctuary, and Lords of the Fallen (blech).

 

[stroopwafel]

Definitely. Actually one of the first things that popped into my mind after playing Demon's Souls closely after release in 2009 was ''wow this is like a hardcore Zelda''. I think primarily b/c it uses that similair rhythm of exploration and combat, while being totally different in execution ofcourse.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I specifically use the greatsword shield combo in Souls games mostly for the very reason it feels a little more like the Adult Zelda that I remember wanting as a young teenager. So...yes the comparisons are good enough for me to be that weird. I wasn't aware anyone else would think the same.

Edit: Also the stamina system gives such a more grounded feel to every battle, it is like the game is outright showing how difficult it would be to be the hero in such a fantasy land...and I dig that. Dig it like the most digging digger in diggerland with diamond tipped digging digs.

 

[Michael Legault]

I say that the Souls series is what Castlevania should be. In my mind that is where they should've gone with Castlevania.

 

[karloss01]

...and also you don't need a specific item to reach an area.

Spoiler: spoiler for Dark Souls 1

Except the one time you wanted a ring to see some kind of ghosts to fight them. But that it.

Not true. In Dark Souls 2 alone you need the four Greatsouls, The Giants' kinship, the Ashen Mist Heart, the Soldier Key and the King's Ring among others. In Dark Souls there's the Lordvessel, the Key to the Seal, the Covenant of Artorias and the Lava Ring at least. I think the only game in the series where you truly don't need any items per se is Demon's Souls, if only because its structure is much more fragmented instead of one world.


Also, if you're talking about the ghosts in New Londo in that spoiler, you don't need a ring for that, just the Transient Curse.

Spoiler

Nah he means the four kings, you need the ring of artorias (I think that's the name) to even enter the boss fight without dying in less then five seconds

 

[Hero of Lime]

I would say no. If the Souls games had a huge emphasis on dungeons and puzzle solving, then you can compare the two more. For me, you can't fully compare other games to Zelda, unless they have dungeons, combat, exploration, and character growth. Most games have the combat, exploration, and character growth, but few games have Zelda-like dungeons. In all honesty, I just wouldn't compare them. For every similarity, there are four ways the two franchises are very different.

On the topic of being a grown up version, I would say Zelda games are not inherently kid games. Kids can play and enjoy Zelda games, just as any adult could. If you were to have many adult gamers who only play "mature" games, play Zelda games, many would have difficulty completing them for the first time without some kind of help. Just as I'm sure there a bunch of younger kids who could enjoy and beat the Souls games too, despite being thought of as "mature" titles.

 

[CrystalShadow]

So in the more-child friendly version, they basically hold your hand and say "Hey, use that cool bow here! The bow! You remember, the bow!" In Dark souls, they give you an item and let you use it when you want. (How realistic are those dungeons that revolve around an item anyways?)

I was also thinking, how horrible it would have been if Nintendo had Patented their revolutionary Z-Targeting technology like some people "Cough-Sanity meter, Cough Cough- Games/tutorials during loading times" we would have had such a HORRIBLE time playing Dark souls, Dragons Dogma, etc.

how realistic is a dungeon built around an item? Depends on the dungeon. Speaking of comparisons, at some pount I realised Tomb raider has a lot of stuff going on that feels zelda-like.
You explore ancient ruins, get into the odd fight or two, but mostly the locations in both are often dominated by puzzles.
Tomb Raider doesn't really incolve items, but then a lot of zelda puzzles don't require any one specific item either.

Anyway, why mention that? Tomb raider has some 'dungeons' based on real-world ruins. They no doubt took liberties with them, but some architectural elements of these ruins seem specifically designed as a test for certain kinds of people.

So... If you think about that, a dungeon built around an item is weird if the dungeon exists for some practical reason, (like, say, being an old fortress, an actual 'dungeon' - eg a prison, basically).
But things change a bit when you assume the 'dungeon' is something else. Say, a tomb. (traps designed to keep out grave robbers), a temple/monestary (symbolic or ritualistic features. Stuff designed to test initiates or believers for specific skills, personality traits or something with religious significance)
There's other options too, likely, but 'dungeon built around item' becomes far more plausible if you consider it may have been intended as a religious test, or an initiation rite, or training for some specific task or role... Then it would be that way because it was explicitly designed to test people on the item involved.

we see some explicit cases of this in fact. Consider A link to the past's first official 3 dungeons in the light world... (thr section underneath the dungeon, ironically is more like a... well... Actual dungeon... )

These are referred to as temples/palaces, but the ingame reason for their existence... Is to serve as tests to prove a hero is wworthy of weilding the master sword.
3 whole dungeons, whose existence is very explicitly about testing people to see if they are worthy of claiming an ancient artifact... ( That is the in-universe justification for those dungeon's existence, not just their gameplay based reason)

I mean, it's a little weird, yes, for them all to be like that, but there are some concievable reasons why such a structure could exist, even in reality.

Oh, and as for z-targeting... They may well have patented it...
Funny thing about it is patents can often be worked around.
Nintendo held patents on the d-pad. Didn't stop competitors from designing similar controls.
I think the analog stick may have been similar.
Possibly even the snes pad layout.., And wouldn't you know it, that layout is now the defacto standard (with some additions), in spite of that likely being a protected design of some kind.

They have some kind of patents on automatic 3rd person camera control by the way.., Never really figured out which games use it (mario galaxy, probably, considering what it's camera is like), but that it's patented is amusing I suppose...

 

[Super Cyborg]

I thought everyone considered Majoras Mask to be the "Adult" Zelda game?

Ok, so I only know about the Souls games, I have never played them. However, the game doesn't look or sound like Zelda at all. Zelda is about puzzles with some fighting in it, with a number of fights having puzzles involved, ie using items a certain way to actually hit the boss. Dark Souls is about taking your time in a world that is against you, and sounds like the world is just being a dick to you constantly. One is supposed to be about the adventure and less the difficulty, while the other says the difficulty is the adventure.

I don't understand why people think there needs to be an "Adult" Zelda game. Heck, we already have some pretty mature themes in the games while they can be pretty lighthearted, or even some gruesome scenes (looking at you Windwaker, with how Ganondorf was finished off). It's a series which all ages can easily play, but certain maturity is needed to appreciate the subtle stuff. One thing I'm noticing with my current playthrough of MM 3D is how well Skull Kid is done. He was a lonely kid, who from a prank put on a cursed mask. There was also a great job of the antagonist being shown as just a playful prankster, but then facing off in the clock tower for the first time, it gets dark real quick.

 

[Guffe]

I haven't played the Souls series, but based on what I've seen of it, not really.
I'd say the Darsiders series is a better shout for "adult Zelda", then I again I know several adults who enjoy the Zelda franchise (me included), so not sure why we need an "adult version" of a perfectly great series...
I understand the thought, and it's quite a fun one too, but not a necessary one

 

[SlaveNumber23]

Eh, it has a lot of similar elements and style, but I don't think there are enough similarities to be able to label it so decisively. Definitely a comparison I've thought about before though.