cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/28095114
Vapor World: Over The Mind is a Soulslike Metroidvania with an evocative, painterly art style reminiscent of Lies of P and the narrative platformers of Playdead. According to Korean studio Alive Inc, the game had 100,000 wishlists just before its early access launch on August 19, mostly on the strength of a demo available since January 2025.
But what should have been a triumphant early access launch went pear shaped very quickly. At launch, few talked about the quite distinctive worldbuilding or the parry-heavy combat. Instead, all focus was trained entirely on something absent from the popular demo: very obvious AI use.
One of the things that drew me into Dark Souls to begin with was that it had some of that metroidvania feel. A soulslike metroidvania just sounds kind of redundant as a genre.
I believe the defining feature of the metroidvania genre is that it’s essentially an open world, but certain paths are barred by the need of a specific item/movement mechanic. Like “you need to learn double jump to reach the high platform that lets you access this new area”.
Where as Dark Souls immediately lets you wander into the graveyard or spooky ghost area and get your ass handed to you repeatedly until you wonder, oh maybe this wasn’t the best path!
At the same time, most of the endgame zones are gated behind the lordvessel. And that is gated behind sens and the bells. Four lords behind the ring from sif. That’s gated behind the crest from andre. So there are certainly some walls.
I haven’t played souls games, but perhaps the difference is how central that is to progression? In a metroidvania the world is typically littered by both paths you can’t go through and secrets for you to find, both of which require abilities you’ll be gathering consistently as the main method of progression. As you wander the same paths, the abilities make it easier and faster while letting you find those secrets and now-usable paths to progress further.
I was about to say the same thing. Any Souls-like that actually understands the format is already a Metroidvania. Some think it has something to do with combat, or bonfires, but really it’s the exploration that makes it soul-like.
Honestly, it’s really just a new trendier way to call a game a Metroidvania. I can’t think of any functional differences between the genres. Arguably, RPG mechanics, but many games using the Souls-like description don’t have this, and Sekiro doesn’t, so I think they’re just two terms for the same genre. Metroidvania often has a 2D connotation, and Souls a 3D one, but they’re both used for either.
Maybe ideally but mostly it means “hard combat against bosses with predictable attacks you learn to dodge around”.
Yeah, that’s the bad understanding I’m talking about. It’s a purely surface level view of them, and it’s not what makes them interesting or popular. There are plenty of games with that that suck, so it can’t be the foundation of what Souls-likes are.
It’s also a mechanic that Metroidvanias classically have too, so yeah…
I’m sure there are also plenty of games with exploration that suck, I don’t think that really makes it a valid point. I can’t speak to what soulslikes are, since I haven’t played the original games, but a game can implement one element well and still fail at being an interesting game, which doesn’t invalidate that element in any way.
Realistically, can’t both combat and exploration be foundational elements of soulslike? I got the impression a big part is the way the combat works, usually involving a lot of commitment into your combat moves, with animations on attacks, dodges, heals, and multiple ways to be punished (and punish enemies), including plain damage, wasting items, wasting stamina.
There’s something at the heart of them that makes them interesting. It isn’t just “exploration”, but a particular style of exploration, which will not fail. It isn’t just boss fights with dodging, because having that alone doesn’t have the heart of a Souls game. The exploration alone could, but yeah, obviously it has to be done properly, not just “exploration”.
It could. I honestly don’t think it is. Sekiro is also a Souls-like, and the combat is very different. I’m pretty confident you can make a good Souls-like with no combat. The combat, in my opinion, is there to give you a reason to explore. It’s there to be a challenge, where exploring is the key to overcoming it. There will be items and secrets that make the combat easier if you search for it. It’s not required, but you’d need something else to take the place of this.
Chants of Sennaar comes to mind of something I’d consider to capture a lot of the spirit of Souls games without combat. They’re obviously very different games, but I think they share a lot. You can try to brute force your way through, but you’re encouraged to explore and engage with the world, and discover it, which makes the critical path easier. This is the goal for both Souls-likes and CoS.
One thing I’ll say is that Chants of Sennaar is, to my knowledge, usually compared to metroidvanias, part of a subgenre sometimes called “metroidbrainia”, also known as knowledge-gated/rule-discovery puzzle games. Though it’s a bit debatable in terms of how much of it is gated by knowledge, and how much is built to be mechanical progression, but the general idea holds.
I’m also not sure if you can really bruteforce your way through it, but it’s been a while since I’ve played it.
You can’t totally brute force it, but you can brute force certain words IIRC.
But yeah, it’s basically a Metroidvania where combat is replaced by puzzles, but that’s my point. Souls-like is just a trendy new way to say Metroidvania. I literally can’t think of a functional difference between them. Every Metroidvania I think could just as well call itself a Souls-like, and vice versa, and nothing would change. I remember DS1 being called a Metroidvania originally.
The difference is almost purely aesthetic. Like I said earlier, possibly the only real distinguishing factor is RPG mechanics, but there are examples of games using either genre description with and without that, so I don’t think it’s required.
Being good or not isn’t what qualifies something to fall into a particular genre, though
That’s not what I meant. I meant that the core experience will be good if it replicates what the Souls games do, which is why they’re successful. Many “Souls-likes” replicate the combat, and it sucks. Honestly, the DS1 and Demons Souls combat is pretty rough, but they revolutionized gaming, and the boss fights weren’t the unique thing they were doing. Boss fights like them have existed forever.
If you look at the older FromSoftware catalogue, you can see what makes their games special. The older games have incredibly clunky combat, but they still have the core exploration loop. There’s a hand built world with care and thought put into every detail, and the game gives obstacles that get easier if you engage with the world and explore. This is often with items or levels, but it’s sometimes just with information. This is what makes a Souls-likes, and the copycats that fail are missing this (or they just didn’t make an interesting world to explore). Hollow Knight isn’t great because of the combat. The combat is fine, but it’s the interesting world that’s begging for you to engage with it that makes it compelling. That’s the core of Souls-likes.
I mean, even you seem to be struggling to describe what makes a game a like… Which is exploration? Which could apply to a dozen other completely unrelated genres.
Every mechanic belongs to many genres, especially when you’re talking about subgenres, like this.