Talk:Dark Souls/Archive 1

Archive 1

Difficulty

"The series is notable for having a difficulty level considered to be very punishing at higher levels. It is no secret that these games are known for being hard. If it is inappropriate to add this to the header because the header is lacking, then instead of removing it, we need to expand the header with necessary information and INCLUDE this. Leaving it out is a disservice to this page. Osh33m (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It is no secret today that these games are known for being hard, but that may not be the case in 5 or 10 years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.132.185 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Armoured Core

Would it be worth adding this to the related games section? Dark Souls borrows the name Seath from this series so the two are related. (See Commander Keen (Billy Blaze) being the grandson of Wolfenstein 3D‍'‍s William Joseph "BJ" Blazkowicz according to The Official Hint Manual for Wolfenstein 3-D and in idSoftware's internal canon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.132.185 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015‎ (UTC)

No, that's an incredibly trivial detail. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Demon Souls/Dark Souls logo

Would anyone be able to to take these pngs and merge them as one on top of the other? Here are the images File:Demon's_Souls_logo.png
File:Dark_Souls_logo.png Osh33m (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I could try. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Although it could probably be improved, as I'm not used to uploading media. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, dissident. I guess it could be improved but at least we have it there now due in no small part to you Osh33m (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Souls series vs Dark Souls series with Demon's Souls featured in Related titles vs King's Field series merge

It has come to my attention that there is a dispute on whether "Souls" is a legitimate video game series at all. I think the new introductory statement is fine the way it is now. And let me make a few points. When I made the article, it was decided on consensus here that it should be renamed to just "Souls". Made sense. Now the argument here has becomes that -

• Because Demon's Souls is a Sony entity
• Because Demon's Souls is a spiritual predecessor to Dark Souls
• Because Demon's Souls and thus the Souls games as a whole are spiritual predecessors to King's Field

- that this page should be merged into King's Field, or that Demon's Souls should be moved to related titles and the article should be named back to Dark Souls. I have a few problems with these.

• First of all, yes Demon's Souls is an IP that is Sony owned, and that is pretty obvious as to why FromSoftware decided to create a title with a similar name, but multi-platform. That doesn't necessarily mean the games are separate series though. Yes, articles refer to Dark Souls series as its own, but the vast majority refer to it as "Souls", inclusive of Demon's Souls. There might not have even been a Dark Souls if Demon's Souls wasn't successful.
• Dark Souls is a spiritual successor to Dark Souls, but that doesn't make it separate from the series. Red Dead Redemption is the spiritual successor to Red Dead Revolver, and the wikipedia page lists it as a series.
• Dark Souls is a spiritual successor to Demon's Souls which is a spiritual successor to King's Field, however - I think it is sufficient to say that Demon's Souls has a lot more in common with Dark Souls than King's Field, besides just the name. In the case of Bloodborne, however, FromSoftware and Sony have both made it very clear that although it is the same exact type of game, that is not a part of the series whatsoever; it is its own distinct IP. Even Phil Spencer acknowledges that.

So I do not think that Demon's Souls should be moved to the Related Titles section. How exactly would it fit in there? Doesn't it make sense to leave it as part of the main series like it is now for reasons already stated? Nor do I think it should be merged into the King's Field article because Demon's Souls itself is a new IP distinct from King's Field. As for renaming the article back to Dark Souls series, I guess I am indifferent about that because that's how I named it originally but I think the argument at the time and now for having it Souls does hold water. But I want to hear everyone else's thoughts on this matter. What do you think? Osh33m (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look above, the editor who began the discussion you linked has already been commented in an earlier section. I don't believe there's really anything further to discuss on this. The discussion over at WP:VG favored the current arrangement in my view, with only two editors saying that Demon's Souls is a related title rather than a part of the series. I feel like we're beating a dead horse for the moment, continuously reopening the same discussions. -- ferret (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that itlooks fine the way it is now but I'm only bringing it up because the discussion didn't look conclusive. The last person to write on it didn't seem satisfied, as they were asking for a source. Osh33m (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You're quite correct in saying that Bloodborne is a distinct IP from Dark Souls, Osh33m, but it's also undeniable that Dark Souls is a distinct IP from Demon's Souls, and that "Souls" does not even exist as an IP at all. It might be obvious why From created a different series rather than a sequel, yet a different series they did create. As for Red Dead Redemption, did you notice that its sources include an article calling it one of the most improved sequels? The statement that it's a spiritual successor is uncited and should probably be removed. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

They're still part of the same series, though. FromSoftware is aware of this and Miyazaki makes it clear when referencing Souls discussion. But they have made sure to have people understand that bloodborne is separate. Demon's Souls didn't get a proper sequel because sony owns the IP. Osh33m (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Miyazaki directly states that Dark Souls is "a new game on its own." [1] You were right to create a page for the Dark Souls series. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Miyazaki may have said this, but you have to wonder if that's only because they couldn't get the rights to the name/IP, which is owned by SCE. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Miyazaki is clearly aware of the fact that the term "Souls series" exists as it was pointed out here, but has made that effort in separating bloodborne from the series. Osh33m (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What you're linking to is editorialization by Jeffrey Matulef. If you read the interview he's referring to, as published in the May 2015 issue of OPM UK, you'll see that Miyazaki's response is to the question of his favorite "from all the abominations he's brought to the PlayStation over the years." [2] I expect he's familiar with a variety of slang and jargon, though: "Souls series", Soulsborne, DaS, ect. That's superfluous to what franchises actually exist. Do you think Miyazaki's off his rocker when he talks about the Dark Souls franchise, or is there such a franchise? Splatterhouse5 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think he's "off his rocker" and I'm not sure what your link proves. He's made the effort to separate Bloodborne from Demon's Souls and Dark Souls but acknowledges that Demon's Souls is considered part of the same series as Dark Souls. Osh33m (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Why was it renamed?

Why was this title renamed? I figured Dark Souls was the most appropriate title since Demon Souls was the only game in the series without that in the title. Can we have it changed back? Osh33m (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a talk section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Dark Souls series regarding the name. I agree with the move though. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be changed back. I'll start a section on WikiProject Video games about it. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Splatterhouse5 Changed back on what grounds? It was already discussed. Souls Series is the WP:COMMONNAME. What has changed since then? CurlyWi (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As per the more recent discussion, it was a mistake to apply WP:COMMONNAME here. Dark Souls series and Souls series are not two different names for the same subject, they are two different subjects. The Dark Souls series is notable and verified to exist, so I would like to restore this article's original title and restructure it to again reflect the Dark Souls series. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that discussion shows a consensus. I see you and Axem Titaniumon on one side the discussion, with the other editors dissenting or neutral. More editors appeared to support the current name, some listing multiple reliable sources in support (Czar). The article should remain as is. -- ferret (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As I already posted in rebuttal, every one of those sources, without exception, has also used Dark Souls series. It'd be a bit silly to say that they're reliable when using one term, but not reliable when using another. Even more significantly, every argument in favor of "Souls series" has revolved around WP:COMMONNAME, which is plainly misapplied. Dark Souls series and Souls series are not synonymous. The Dark Souls series is notable and verified, so there must and will be a page for it. If the "Souls series" is also notable, it should also have a page. Would you prefer that I restore this article's title and structure, or that I create a new page for the Dark Souls series? Splatterhouse5 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I truly believe if you do either, you will be editing against consensus. If you rename this article, it will be reverted, and if you create a second article, it will be redirected back to this one. I do not believe you have gotten a clear enough consensus to take action. Again, in the linked discussion, only you and Axem Titaniumon were agreeing. The rest of the editors did not. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The previous discussion is linked to above, and it's a misrepresentation of its contents to claim there was consensus against the creation of a page for the Dark Souls series. There was no dissent against the statement that Dark Souls series and "Souls series" refer to different subjects: the former, a trademarked IP and fictional setting, the latter, a term of art used by some media outlets for a set of video games that includes Demon's Souls and sometimes Bloodborne. More editors than myself and Axem noted the distinction, and the very sources you've said are reliable also state the existence of a Dark Souls series. It more than meets the requirements for notability and verifiability, and a page for it will exist on this encyclopedia.

Now something there is consensus for, on a Wiki-wide level, is that inaccurate or ambiguous titles should be avoided regardless of their frequency of use. It's a good policy, one worth keeping in mind. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly be WP:BOLD about it if you like, but I believe it will be reverted by any number of editors. You would be better off reopening the discussion at WP:VG since the only editors participating at this talk page are voicing opposition. -- ferret (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I may do so. It seems odd, though, to suggest further discussion while failing to engage in discussion. Again, the sources you're stating to be reliable are stating "Dark Souls series". WP:COMMONNAME is a policy concerning conflicting titles for the same subject. Dark Souls is a legally recognized IP and media franchise and "Souls" is jargon for a set of games that sometimes includes Bloodborne and sometimes doesn't. Wikipedia naming conventions tend against the selection of titles that are incorrect or ambiguous. If you disagree with my statements, please share your rationale. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've clearly been engaged here, you just don't really like what I have to say. What more is there to say? We hold opposing positions, and as such I recommended you seek a broader audience before taking action. But since you want elaboration: I disagree with your (and Axem's) interpretation of the situation, as did others. Reliable sources have grouped the games together, whether it's jargon or not. There is no need to have separate articles for what ultimately is the same topic. One article would have four games in the main series, and the second article would have one of the four moved to a related title section. Otherwise the article content would be identical. Since the article topic is the same except for the section placement of a single title, they should remain merged. This means WP:COMMONNAME applies. Based on sourcing and several editors comments in the last discussion, Souls is an appropriate name. Axem was for renaming this article back to Dark Souls, not having two, so you are the only one proposing having two topics. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not see this debate until now, but I agree with ferret and CurlyWi. I could give my input but ferret said pretty much all that needs to be said already. I am the one who originally created this article, with the "Dark Souls series" title in fact, and back then I understood that changing it to "Souls series" was the right thing to do. Osh33m (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Game table

To avoid further edit warring on the table, seems like it's time to go to the talk page. I added the timeline as part of a sweep of cleaning up old manual tables and timeline tables in various articles. I added it here just in passing through, and didn't mind when it was removed. However, I do agree with Dissident that we only need one... either a game table or a timeline, not both. My personal preference is a timeline, as it's a simple "at a glance" timeline of releases. I find the other table (In other articles as well, not just this one) to be cumbersome. Mostly, I see these larger tables in articles that don't have prose for the games (See Unreal (series) and Battlefield (series) as examples). Since we have a prose format already in place here, I'm against the largest table. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Large tables look messy, often repeat information, and break the flow of the article. Timeline is a better option. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the large table looks messy...it's uniform and organized. And for readers of the page, at a quick glance (in accompany of the timeline) it shows all of the releases of the game, including scholars of the sin.

I want to revert the page and add it back in. Anyone object? Osh33m (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dissident hasn't replied here, but clearly is against the table. I have posted opposition, as has The1337gamer. Opposition should already be clear. -- ferret (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this. I don't see the need for two tables, especially one that takes up 4x the physical space, but doesn't have any new information. The smaller template is fine enough, and even that isn't a 100% need for the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The second table would provide more information than the timeline which is strictly for new installments. The table included the scholar of the first sin in it, and for readers it'd be a quicker point of reference. Osh33m (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I added Scholar to the timeline, nothing that says timeline can't include DLC/Expansions, so that concern is covered now. Still opposed to the table. -- ferret (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I undid it. Timelines aren't needed except for major installments to really emphasize the gaps in time. I'll wait for a consensus to bring the table back, however long it takes. Osh33m (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't think anybody else will agree we need two tables, with one way larger than the other, when the info exists below both anyway. Maybe this would be needed on a series article with tons of games (Final Fantasy), but not when the total amount of games is four. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, if there were a table it would also include scholar of the first sin which would make it 5. that's just one more but it would give readers an idea of all the series release, major or not. Osh33m (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But the info is listed right below in prose. I really don't see a need for one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, why would any wiki article have a table if the information is in prose? Osh33m (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Because there are some instances where a table is clearly better than prose (see discographies, awards lists, sports results). In this case, the information within the table should already be covered in prose because it is the main subject of the article. Therefore, there is no need to repeat it again in an ugly table. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In almost all cases, both the prose and table are included. And I certainly don't agree that it was ugly. It enhanced the page. But, I'll wait however long it takes to reach consensus. Osh33m (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for it so far beside you. Like The1337gamer said, the info is better suited for prose in this case, and the smaller template really is enough. (and even that could have a case to be removed) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There are no tables for this info on the higher quality video game series articles, see Final Fantasy, Halo (series), Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. Osh33m, you're clearly looking at shitty articles like Battlefield (series) and using that as a basis to "improve" this article. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No need for the foul language. I'm in no rush for the table to be there so I'll wait however long it takes for a consensus to be reached. Osh33m (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I would just drop this. You have multiple editors saying it doesn't belong. A consensus HAS been reached, it's just not the one you want. A consensus like this isn't going to "change" just because you wait around. If you truly believe we're wrong and that others would support the table, go to WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. If you want this subject dropped then by all means, move on. Osh33m (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the text ("prose"), I vote for a (sortable) table to present series-relevant information instead of a simple reductionist timeline (Banjo-Kazooie_(series)#Games). It is tedious to search through the text and individual articles and misses the possibility of direct comparison. Of course, only important criteria of the titles should be included in the columns. Hippo99 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to join: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Video_game_series:_Template:Video_game_timeline_vs_Template:Wikitable_sortable_vs_Template:Video_game_titles Best regards, Hippo99 (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Class image

Although it is not absolutely essential for there to be an image, you have to see that by that logic, none of the video game articles need to have any images there, either. The purpose the images show are to literally better illustrate what is being explained in the prose. Please, leave this be. I really don't see what the harm is in having this in the article. Furthermore, this image has been on the article for at least a week. Why you suddenly had the idea that it doesn't belong anywhere doesn't really make sense. Its presence does not hurt, and would give the reader a visual of what the player has to choose from. Osh33m (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• The image was removed on the basis of WP:NFCC #8. This is plenty of reason to remove it. Please, per BRD, when someone reverts your addition with a solid policy based reason, discussion it first before trying to reinsert it. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• The image doesn't even accurately reflect the final version of Souls II, which all screenshots of games on Wikipedia should. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• I oppose it's inclusion as well. Images are meant to be used to depict core concepts not fully able to be conveyed with text alone. A class/character select image like that isn't going to meet that requirement. The page history says that The1337gamer objected it in his edit summary too? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I do what I do here based on common sense. If it turns out to be against policy, then I'll halt it. I won't put the image in there anymore. Osh33m (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You say that, but it was removed with an edit note clearly stating it was against a policy, and added it back... -- ferret (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? It feels more like "I do whatever I want, until I get caught by enough people." Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You make it sound like I'm trying to vandalize the place. What I meant was, I do what I do based on common sense, to improve wikipedia. Just like you, just like everyone else here. That is my goal. That's why this article was created in the first place. Maybe my methods aren't in compliance with how others see it fit, and if that is the case then so be it, but I'll defend my position until there isn't any hope left. That's what I did with the game table on this page, and the class image. But you don't see me reverting the page since then do you? And won't. Osh33m (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Bloodborne

Bloodborne is a Souls game. Wikipedia is the only website on the planet that would ever treat Bloodborne as anything but a Souls game. The developers are being intentionally misleading, possibly for legal reasons. The game is fundamentally Souls, and everyone and every website that has ever seen it treats it as a Souls game. 71.76.240.132 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Says who? We've been through this before. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you just read the first sentence and ignored the rest. Again, says everyone who isn't Wikipedia. I don't know why your website seems to think it's such a great idea to push an obvious inaccuracy, but it's a big problem and it needs to be fixed. 71.76.240.132 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus agreed to not list it as a main series Souls game, sorry if that doesn't fit your own personal (minority) opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Bloodborne is not a Souls game, that is a very common misconception. When FromSoftware addresses their IPs, they intentionally make the distinction "Souls games and Bloodborne games" on purpose. By definition of being its own intellectual property, it is a separate entity. Phil Spencer will tell you that too. And no, it isn't just wikipedia, obviously as others have pointed out, the developers keep it separate too. But wikipedia recognizes its relation to the Souls games, which is why it is included in mention. Osh33m (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Testing of new Template:Video game review score for Metacritic (Wikidata)

Please see the related section at Talk:Dark Souls III. This is a test of a new template that uses Wikidata to source review scores. If there is an issue, feel free to revert, but please report what happened at Talk:Dark Souls III so I can address. -- ferret (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please report any issues at Template talk:Video game review score instead of Talk:Dark Souls III. -- ferret (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Souls series refers to a series..."

I thought it was agreed upon here that this was the proper way to introduce the article? Osh33m (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there's a guideline not to use "refers". See WP:REFERS.  Sandstein  15:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the WPVG discussion agreed on anything. Only two editors commented on the idea of "refers", and that wasn't really the principal topic of the discussion. I would go with WP:REFERS and use "is a". -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright then. If everyone agrees to put it back the way it was, go for it. Osh33m (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Objection to semi-concensus arguments regarding Bloodborne

And just for the record, I'm not the overzealous IP from above. Simply stumbled upon this. User:Dissident93 says there is a concensus, though I didn't notice one. Either way the argument for one was lacking. We do not actually go by what "official" sources say. We go by natural language, like we do with article names, and yes, reliable sources. "Souls games" is not an official name of games in the same universe, nor is it a legal one. It denotes gameplay and atmosphere. As various sources do actually describe it as such, at the very least it should be noted that it's sometimes considered as such. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Prinsgezinde: The consensus was on another talk page (was it this?), and from what I remember, most WP:VG members argued against it being apart of the Souls series. Bloodborne is officially considered a separate IP, and Miyazaki himself groups Demon's and the Dark Souls trilogy together. If you want to bring up the argument for it being included as apart of the series, you should do it at WP:VG. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be included, I'm saying its ambiguous position within the "series" should be explained. I should note that many (most?) of the sources say "Souls games" or "Souls X" and not necessarily "Souls series", but that's minor. The consensus there seems to only be about calling the whole group Souls (instead of Dark Souls), which I agree with. But Bloodborne wasn't discussed at all. To illustrate my point, Game Revolution says here: "Prior to the release of Bloodborne, Souls combat was held back by [...], providing frustration in the franchise's unforgiving environments." And GameZone repeatedly places the three series under the Souls category in its shared-universe theory here. Even if we had consensus about Bloodborne not being a Souls game, which I now doubt, the sources don't have one. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Is its ambiguous position within the 'series' not explained by the "Related titles" section it currently resides in? The article clearly notes that there's a relation already, and has multiple reliable sources that cover the director's comments about its relation. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the issue either. It seems like the "Related titles" section covers its status pretty accurately. Prinsgezinde, what exactly do you propose be changed? Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean we don't go buy what "official" sources say? Are they not the same as reliable sources? That is exactly what we do, otherwise it would be OR. Calling this series the Souls series is natural language. Osh33m (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Soul series confusion

Why is it that every time something like this happens, I am the one that gets blamed when I wasn't even the one who started the war? Come on then, what is the argument here? Osh33m (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe because you're always wrong and don't bother listening. When someone reverts your change, open a talk page discussion first rather than continually restoring your edit. Hatnotes are placed on articles with similar titles. Souls (series) and Soul (series) are too similar to not have a hatnote. Yes, I understand that Soul (series) is now renamed to Soulcalibur (series), however the redirect still exists so nothing has changed. Just because the article has been renamed to Soulcalibur, this doesn't nobody calls it the Soul series anymore. The opening sentence in the article says The Soulcalibur series or Soul series. A reader could search Souls (series) and end up here, when really they meant to search Soul (series) and end up at Soulcalibur (series). And likewise the other way round, someone could search Soul (series) and end up at Soulcalibur (series) when really they meant to search Souls (series). The hatnotes provide them a quick way to get to their intended target, which is the purpose of hatnotes. It's not detrimental to the article so I have no idea why you're so adamant on removing it. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not always wrong, that's an incredibly arrogant thing to say. Nobody is 100% right about everything they ever said. Osh33m (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Soulsborne

Okay, look; all of the internet agrees that Bloodborne is part of the same collection of games most commonly referred to as "Soulsborne" and less commonly as "Blood Souls". So why is this page in stark defiance of that well-known fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.94.226 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This has been rehashed before in the talk page archives, and the section directly above this one. Can you provide any reliable secondary sources that show this is the common view? The articles already covers that the titles are definitely related. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

While "Soulsborne" is a semi-common term used by fans to describe the games, it's nothing official and isn't as widely used in reliable sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"all of the internet" will keep saying whatever it wants. but all the official sources have dispelled bloodborne as part of the souls series, so learn to deal with it and distinguish it. Osh33m (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What are the official sources you're talking about?Jeandeve (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind having BB only in the "Related" section, but Osh33m.. your reliance on "official sources" is misplaced. No, they are not fully reliable in this case. See WP:PRIMARY. At most they could be used to source a statement about what the developers say. But "Souls games/series/X" is a mostly community( and critic)-defined concept and not under any official authority. Wikipedia goes by common usage, not "correct" one. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk)•

Prinsgezinde they are sources quoting the developers and publishers. If that's not considered reliable, I don't know what it is. Osh33m (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What are? You haven't provided them. But you do need to recognize that unless developers officially group them together into a franchise or universe (which is not the case; it consists of at least 2 separate series), the concept will remain flexible and community/critic-defined. For help on that second thing, see WP:RS. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There is one source in the Related titles section of Yoshida specifically stating that Bloodborne is not a successor, or a spinoff to Demon's Souls, which is regarded as the first Souls game, since the creator of the series groups it with Dark Souls. Moreover, when discussing the series in conjuncting with Bloodborne he always distinguishes them by saying Souls and Bloodborne. Lastly, let me remind you that when I first created the article, it was originally Dark Souls (series). By popular consensus, it was moved to Souls (series). That wasn't done by me. If you think it should go back to the way it was, by all means - however let me remind you again that this has been discussed numerous times before, and every single time it's been brought up, the conclusion is that the article's stance should stand as is. Osh33m (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Souls series legacy

If the series has the same impact in the industry for the rest of the generation, I'm going to change Legacy from subsection to section. The argument of other articles doing the same goes both ways. Osh33m (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• And what gives you the sole right to do this? You've often gone ahead and made edits that were against previously defined guidelines and consensus on this very article. As I've seen legacy as a subsection of the game's overall reception (which it is) more commonly than on its own, we should request a new consensus for it to be changed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What gives me the sole right? I could ask you the same. I decided to make a change. And instead of my change being the one left on the article while having a discussion on the talk page, it has to be your preference while we have this discussion. Why does it always have to be what you want? Osh33m (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You have had constant clashes with other editors on this page and others, and seem to ignore relevant policies whenever you don't agree with them. Nobody else has argued in favor of this, and until they do, it shouldn't be changed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
      • These relevant policies are not perfect. What other consensus is there anyways? It's only you and me here, so it's 50/50. Osh33m (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Dissident93. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Souls (series) → Dark Souls (series) – There's no such thing as a "Souls" series. The series is officially known as Dark Souls and only has three games as of this writing. Demon's Souls is a separate IP that predated it and while it was made by the same developers and shares at least one character, it's otherwise not officially part of the series and shouldn't be treated as such. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is creating a problem where there was none. I don't think anyone would argue that Demon's Souls was unrelated to the Dark Souls trilogy. Their gameplay mechanics are practically identical. Sure, they are in different universes, but that's splitting hairs. Removing Demon's Souls would only be detrimental to readers' understanding of the Souls games. WP:COMMONSENSE can be used here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • P.S. The proper title for a move like that would actually be Dark Souls. It would require Dark Souls to be moved to Dark Souls (video game), per precedent. Regardless of the votes, I would amend your move proposal to encompass both pages._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Well the Soulcalibur series page is Soulcalibur (series) (which was originally "Soul (series)" ironically enough, since unlike Dark Souls, that series was known as "Project Soul" for awhile), while Soulcalibur directs to the article for the first game, so there's a precedent for having the plain name direct to the first installment's article (unless you feel the need to rename that too). At any rate, I'm not arguing that Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are not related all, since they're both made by From Software and feature similar play mechanics, but different companies own their IPs. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment It doesn't matter if it was officially part of the series or not, it matters what reliable sources consider it. That being said, I do see that Demon's is quite often considered a "spiritual predecessor" rather than just the first in the series, so there is an argument here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • All you need to do is take a look on the lineup page from the official Dark Souls website. You'll see they list all the games from the original Dark Souls on PS3 all the way to the newly-announced Remastered edition, but no mention of Demon's Souls (or Bloodborne for that matter). Incidentally, the official Demon's Souls website has a link to the official Bloodborne website (the other From Software/SIE co-production), but no mention of the Dark Souls series. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Or you could, like, look at the fact that they both literally have "Souls" in the name. The title is usually the biggest indicator that something is in the same series, not some listings on a website._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • By your flawed logic, Bioshock and System Shock are the same series, even though they're different IPs owned by different companies. It's the same situation with Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. They're different IPs that just happen to be made by the same studios (as Miyazaki himself points out in the 4gamer interview below). Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Souls" is how the series is referred to, particularly when they talk "Souls-like game"; they're clearly including Demon's Souls even if it is a different work. It's the same nature of die-and-repeat gameplay by the same developers, limited only due to IP publishing issues (that's why Bloodborne is also mentioned here) --Masem (t) 18:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mentioned yes, but also considered simply a related title rather than a spin-off. I do believe there is a case here, I'm just not sure If I can commit to supporting it as of now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't believe this argument has been brought up again. First of all, when I moved forward to create this page, I DID create it as Dark Souls (series) however, popular opinion on wikipedia had it moved to Souls (series) because that made more sense overall. Furthermore, yes Dark Souls is considered a spiritual successor to Dark Souls, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of the series; Red Dead Redemption is a spiritual successor to Red Dead Revolver, yet, it is part of the same series. Lastly, it is true that Demon's Souls is a separate IP from Dark Souls, but that is because Sony owns the rights to Demon's Souls. The director and creator of the series groups them all together putting Demon's Souls first - but always distinguishes Bloodborne as separate but related. So there's the distinction, all the distinction you need. Osh33m (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Unlike Dark Souls and Demon's Souls, Red Dead Redemption and Red Dead Revolver are both Rockstar IPs and "Red Dead" used to be the official name for that franchise (as can be seen on the official Rockstar Games website when browsing their catalog), although I'm guessing that's falling into disuse now that the newest entry is titled Red Dead Redemption II. In any case, it's not really a comparable situation.Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I've already explained why the Souls games had to be separate IPs and also explained that despite this, Miyazaki groups the Souls games together while making the distinction for Bloodborne, so that point is moot. Osh33m (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And I was already aware why they're separate IPs. I'm just explaining to you why your Red Dead comparison is incorrect. At any rate, you keep mentioning the way Miyazaki groups the series, but provide no source. Is it cited in the article itself or in a previous discussion? Even if what you're asserting is true, it doesn't change the fact that the IPs are owned and promoted by different companies. I'm not saying the article shouldn't cover Demon's Souls and its relation to the Dark Souls series though, but it should more accurately reflect the title used by the majority of the series. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • It's not incorrect. If you understood what I was saying then you would get that. Dark Souls is a different IP because Sony owns Demon's Souls but Miyazaki groups them as one series, the Souls series. What Miyazaki says is more important than what you say or what I say. Osh33m (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Arguments on why to rename and reorganize the article are ignoring that reliable sources group the games together, even if the IPs themselves are owned by different companies (A fact easily denoted). We report what the sources state, and they consistently consider the four games to be the same lineage and series. This is inline with the director for all four games, who clearly states in interviews that he considers them the same series (and specifically calls our Bloodborne as related but not the same series). There IS a such thing as the 'Souls' series, because sources report on one. -- ferret (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Which interview did Miyazaki state that considers the four games to be part of the same series? I asked Osh33m several times and he refused to provide a source. At any rate, "Dark Souls (series)" is a much more unambiguous title than "Souls (series)", so I still propose the move. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The only one I can find where Miyazaki himself clearly had them consider as one series was this. Although it's not universal, sources do mostly consider them as a single series, which is the primary factor here. As for Bloodborne, sources do not consider it a proper Souls game, and instead use the term "Soulsborne". I do agree that the title isn't ideal, because it's probably more common to use "Dark Souls" series, even when including Demon's. Perhaps that's the real issue here? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Here is another one [3]. Not once does he refer to Dark Souls as a series, he says "Souls games and Bloodborne" - so he does not separate Demon's Souls from the series Osh33m (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Souls (video game series) per WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You've brought this up at WP:VG before and been told we don't do that. Naming guideline WP:NCVGDAB says prefer "series". There are no other 'Souls' series to disambiguate from, so. Conciseness is also part of WP:CRITERIA, and series is more concise unless there's a need for longer disambiguation. -- ferret (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Per WP:PRECISE: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." All that needs to be defined that isn't obvious from the name is that Souls is a series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • As stated above, recent discussions (and WP:PRECISION) established that there's no reason to insert "video game" like that unless there are other sorts of series to distinguish from. This option would be a distant third place choice for me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: In reply to Dissident93's and Osh33m's the above comments regarding Miyazaki's name for the series, in these interviews with Famitsu, 4gamer and Dengeki, he mostly uses "Dark Souls series" (DARK SOULSシリーズ or『ダークソウル』シリーズ) over plain "Soul series". In fact, in the 4gamer interview he even acknowledges the fact that while Dark Souls is a Namco-Bandai IP, Demon's Souls and Bloodborne are both owned by Sony instead, and that the IP holders are open to develop remasters of the games without From Software's involvement if they want to. Interpret that as you will, but personally I see this are more reason to move the page. Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I note this would reverse a previous move 06:43, 28 June 2015‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (44 bytes) (+44)‎ . . (Anthony Appleyard moved page Dark Souls (series) to Souls (series): Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial. Andrewa (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The Dark Souls of X"

I think I can pull sources for this but I'd like to check if it makes sense to describe how (even if jokingly) people call games the "Dark Souls of X". I know it's memetic to a degree as well and the phrase has worn out its welcome, but it still was used a LOT. I'd add this under the Legacy after the Souls-like discussion. --Masem (t) 20:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Are there any sources that directly discuss the phrase? Or would its common use in general be enough to be notable? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ive seen lots of people make the joke, and I think there's even a rando who runs a twitter account making light of the frequency that journalists make the comparison...but I've never seen an RS cover the joke aspect of it, personally. Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• There are actually many reliable sources criticizing the many comparisons, and literally hundreds of sources mocking the "the Dark Souls of " line (a tiny sample: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]), but I don't know if I consider it to be all that relevant to this page. I do believe there'll be a general "Soulslike" genre at some point though (and to people saying such a thing would just falsely interpret recent hype, I invite you to look at Battle royale game). Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge: "Bloodstains" and Bonfires"

Should Bloodstain (Souls series) and Bonfire (Dark Souls) be merged into the Souls (series) articles? Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge both - Both are short stubs that don't have independent notability from the series. They're not individual game releases, characters, or anything else we occassionally split out from video game articles, these are just minor gameplay aspects. The "reception section", if you can call it that, are just random quotes cherry picked from the individual game reviews. The article's are half "characteristics" sections, which is just some gameguide-leaning in-universe descriptions of them. The points are definitely worth discussions, but especially in the case of there being a (relatively short) series article, they need to be discussed there, in a Gameplay or Legacy type section. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be opposed to merging them if there was a good reason to, but some of your arguments are just plain false. "Don't have independent notability", for example, is untrue. There are some references that are entirely about bonfires rather than just the Dark Souls game, such as "Why I Love Bonfires in Dark Souls" and "An Ode to Bonfires", a far cry from being "random quotes cherry picked from reviews". I doubt you could say the same about the vast majority of other individual game elements._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Those sources are few and far between, and lead to very little notable commentary. The reception sections are short and padded with minor tangents that aren't really reception. (Writers hoping the feature isn't removed for remasters, quotes that are more describing the feature than providing reception, etc) There's just no reason this can't be in the series article, which is still pretty short. The gameplay section is a short three paragraphs, and the legacy section merely one sentence. Plenty of space to describe how they work in the gameplay section, and any noteworthy commentary on their importance in the legacy section. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge both They don't seem to be too separate from the games. if there was more to separate them, then I would agree. but I don't see anything that makes it necessary to split them. this is just my humble opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge both. In addition, the Aldrich, Devourer of Gods, Ornstein and Smough, Sif, the Great Grey Wolf, Solaire of Astora, Tower of Latria, Sen's Fortress, and Anor Londo articles all have the same issues, with them all being made despite only being (passively) namedropped in like four or five sources. 90% of the prose in them wouldn't really be needed in the main articles, so why do we have entire articles about them? It's just fancruft really. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If "being in more than five reliable sources" was the cutoff, I doubt most articles on Wikipedia would exist. This seems to be more bias than actual application of the rules. If you keep raising the bar beyond what is actually required then of course the articles won't be suitable for Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The sources are mostly valid, the problem here is you making standalone articles for stuff that is missing in the base articles. We don't need tons of smaller articles that pretty much only focus on reception, as the vast majority of it could be merged back in with no issue on the base articles. The original Dark Souls article doesn't even have a development section beyond the history of the PC version, and yet we have six (or eight, if you count bloodstains and bonfires) spinoff articles for it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Exactly, these are fan Wikia-level spinout articles. Its not bias, its precedent. These articles are the type of stuff that people were creating back in 2008, but have largely been eliminated from Wikipedia. I'm sure I could find a few low-level editorials about "The chaos emeralds are just the best" or "Rings (Sonic the Hedgehog) changed platformers forever" but that doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article from the Sonic the Hedgehog series article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Souls location articles look like they would readily support a Locations in Dark Souls article similar to Locations of Half-Life (which is not perfect, but...) that has enough dev and reception information for the locations, and likely in general of the series' architecture, to support that. Possibly same with the bosses/characters. I do see the standalone articles as weak on their own. --Masem (t) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't oppose this in principle, but I feel like having that would just allow for even more non-notable places to be added to it, supported by a single citation and allowed to be kept because it's relevant to the topic. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge both Key gameplay elements unique to Souls series that can be described on the series page. --Masem (t) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge all of them including the ones Dissident mentioned. Characters and locations should be merged to the game article while the gameplay concept articles should be merged with the series article. I don't see the need of turning all these bosses and characters into separate articles. First, RS coverage about them is rather weak. Second, the parent articles still have plenty of room for expansion. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge both The point of series articles is to cover the series as a whole entity. That includes covering recurring gameplay mechanics and elements. Also let's be honest, creating a separate article for a something as minutiae as checkpoint system used one series of games is ridiculous; it's an obvious example cruft. Dump it on wikia by all means but it doesn't belong here. Both articles and this series article are relatively short. Selectively merge appropriate and pertinent content, ditch the filler. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we've got a clear consensus here. Probably time to start thinking about merging soon. I can do it, but it might be better for a knowledgeable Souls player to do it instead. Any input/volunteers? Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• You can get the move started and I could help clean it up. Is this just for Bloodstains and Bonfires, or are the ones I suggested that also garnered support included? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I was kind of wondering if Zxcvbnm wanted to do it - I didn't know if he'd prefer the handling the content written himself, or if he'd rather not because he was against the merge. It seems to go both ways when articles get merged like this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't really have any interest in merging it so if someone else wants to do it by all means._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Alright, I'll probably do it in the coming days then, if no one else steps in. Definitely the gameplay ones, and likely the location ones, as I'm not seeing any opposition to that either, outside of from the article creator. (I support their merger as well, showing at least 3 in support of it above.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Update: I've merged Bloodstains and Bonfires. I fully support merging the location/characters too, but I'm short on time and motivation currently. Will get to eventually if no one else does. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Script error

This article is currently displaying a script error at Souls (series)#Reception: "Lua error in Module:Video_game_series_reviews at line 95: attempt to concatenate local 'sitelink' (a nil value)". That is due to a new Wikidata item Dark Souls: Remastered (Q55728812) which has no link to an article ("siteLink"). Would someone please fix the Wikidata page after checking that the information is valid (I have no idea). @ferret: You might like to consider whether buildGameWikidata in Module:Video game series reviews should do something special if siteLink is nil. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I am unable to look at the module till later this week, @Izno: is this a valid wikidata item to even have? -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If the game exists, I wouldn't be troubled. Fits under the structural criterion for notability at Wikidata, probably. --Izno (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Nevermind I grabbed a moment to fix it. All good now. Will just use label if no sitelink. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Demon's Souls" isn't a part of the genuine "Dark Souls" video game series.

The "Dark Souls" series (1,2,3) constitutes the spiritual successor to "Demon's Souls" but has no direct relation to it, neither legally nor storywise. Similarities in game design and the same game director are not sufficient to name them as one genuine video game series.

"Demon's Souls" must stand alone as does "Bloodborne" because the same rules apply here: Similarities in regard to general game design and the same director but a different IP owner and no connections inside the fictional universe unless of course the player wants to imagine them so.

"Demon's Souls" and "Dark Souls" are not marketed as a series and the director himself sees them as two different games: "'Dark Souls' is not a sequel to 'Demon’s Souls' by any means". (Cf. see below) To my mind there exists no "Souls" series from an encyclopedic point of view but there is "Demon's Souls" and there is the "Dark Souls" series and they should be designated in this way.

References:

(Hidetaka Miyazaki, 2011) https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/02/04/dark-souls-qa-variety-is-the-spice-of-death/

IP Demon's Souls (->) Sony (https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/02/10/shuhei-yoshida-interview.aspx)

IP Dark Souls (1-3) (->) Bandai Namco (https://en.bandainamcoent.eu/dark-souls)

HAXrbt 00:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaxAreBoot (talk • contribs)

This has been discussed multiple times in the past. See the talk page archives and the sources in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally think that having the title be moved to "Dark Souls (series)" while keeping the prose the same (meaning Demon's is still considered a part of the series) is the best way to handle this. "Souls (series)" is too ambiguous even if you disagree with that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed several times. When I first created the page, I did in fact create it as Dark Souls (series), and now that is just a redirect link because the general consensus quickly became that Souls (series) is the proper title. Osh33m (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As a fan I understand the general consensus and I accept it but if you put the term to a test: neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability, it does not hold up. The term "Souls" - created certainly more by fans than by the actual creators - to designate one coherent video game series does not feel right inside an encyclopedia. Possibly Miyazaki's games are simply not made to be put into unalterable terms. If the content can't be moved to/titled as "Dark Souls (series)" perhaps - to reclose this discussion for now - the history of the term "Souls" should be explained in the article so that newcomers understand that this is one series by similar gameplay mechanics only and not by any other verifiable quality. HAXrbt 18:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaxAreBoot (talk • contribs)

I think we need to open a new RfC solely about the page title. All previous discussions on the matter were about including Demon's or not, so this would not be kicking a dead horse. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the article explains it well enough for newcomers already. Miyazaki has time and time again grouped and referred to the series as "Souls", and this statement in the Dark Souls section exists that already puts to rest this discussion --> "From Software wanted to craft games similar to Demon's Souls but the exclusivity of the IP to Sony prevented them from using the same name on other platforms. Instead, From Software crafted a new intellectual property to be published on multiple consoles." Osh33m (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, my issue is with the page title only, as Souls (series) is too ambiguous in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Understood, I updated the first line of the article to include both so that the terms can be inclusive and interchangeable. What do you think? Osh33m (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach as it just adds more clutter and confusion to somebody reading about the series for the first time. We need to hold a proper RfC about the page title only, as consensus is to keep Demon's apart of the series and that doesn't look to be changing anytime soon. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be seen as confusing. Especially how the Dark Souls (series) link itself is a redirect to Souls. If anything, it would dissolve the confusion to somebody reading the article. Osh33m (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the other name redirects here, it probably does need mentioned. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

So then what's wrong with my previous edit? Osh33m (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert you so can't answer. -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought my reason was sufficient enough. Dark Souls/Souls are meant to be the same thing, not alternative titles. Therefore, having both in the opening sentence just leads to potential confusion and objective bloat. If the page title was Dark Souls (series) like I and others have been suggesting for a while now, then this problem doesn't exist in the first place. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

'Souls Series'?

I'm not sure that Demon's Souls should be lumped in with the three Dark Souls titles as a 'series'. The Demon's Souls IP is owned by Sony, and has no official connection to Dark Souls. Although Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1-3 and Bloodborne have a community around them which consider them part of a series (usually 'Souls' or 'Soulsborne', see speedsouls.com or 'Souls' series on speedrun.com), this is strictly community based and non-official. 'Dark Souls' is a franchise, 'Souls' is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.49.132 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Repeatedly discussed, including in the section just above this one. We all understand it's not an official term. However, the term is also used by secondary reliable sourcing, which is what Wikipedia is based on. The RS's, not just fans, call them Souls. -- ferret (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We get that it is its own franchise owned by another company, but that doesn't change the fact that loads of publications, including Miyazaki himself, group the games as a single series irregardless of IP ownership. See my posts in the above section for an alternative solution. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Related games

Why was this section removed from the article? Osh33m (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't removed, its still there, but it removed examples of not-notable games or where the sourcing was non-reliable. --Masem (t) 19:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The article had related, but fragmented content spread all over. Nothing was removed except for some not-as-notable influence examples which just bloated the section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Because of example bloat, per usual. There’s no need to list off every example in existence. Mario and Zelda have a ton of games that they influenced too, but we don’t need to keep an exhaustive list of every single game. The general sentiment and a couple strong examples is sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

So just to clear things up, I'm not talking about the Legacy section, but the section that tied the Souls games to King's Field and Bloodborne. There's no section called "Related games" anymore.Osh33m (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to a version of the page history that had it? Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the need for it when it fits just as well under legacy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Look here

I don't think it fits just as well under Legacy. The legacy section is supposed to talk about the impact the series has had in the gaming market and pop culture. Related games section was made to give more backstory on Souls relation to other video game series' history. Osh33m (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, "other media" should just go under legacy then. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with leaving it the way it was? Osh33m (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you not read the replies? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I originally asked why it was removed, and now I'm asking why the formation was broken. Osh33m (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The three replies to your original post should explain it. In addition to culling some example bloat, all I did was consolidate fragmented information into groups where they made more sense. I don't see what's so controversial about this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

But what is the logic in saying the article was bloated to begin with? When was that decided? Compared to several other video game series articles, this one is much shorter. In addition to that, the information is the same, the section is just removed. What was bloated about having a section saying "Related games" and "Other media"? Osh33m (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say after I decided to WP:BEBOLD, with two other editors that responded here seemingly not opposed to it. I still think you don't understand what I'm saying. The fragmented info has nothing to do with the article's overall size; in fact, that only strengthens the need for it to be consolidated with fewer subsections. The only thing I actually removed was the WP:EXAMPLECRUFT listing of seemingly every game that has been compared to the series. We should limit that to the most notable examples only, especially nowadays when games with any sort of high level of difficulty or obscurity are going to be called "Soulslike" by the media. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

My only problem with this is that it's not consistent with all video game series articles. There are sections for Other media, and not all of them have Legacy sections. If I saw this sort of format through all of them then I would get why you would see the need for WP:EXAMPLECRUFT but as it is the article is not even bloated. Osh33m (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Including every single game that has a mention of Souls as an influence isn't WP:EXAMPLECRUFT to you? Using that logic just allows for the article to get bloated over time. As for the other articles not being consistent, they probably need updating too. Also, not every articles needs the same sections for consistency reasons, forcing a cookie-cutter approach like that doesn't improve anything. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider it cookie-cutter, I consider it uniform. And to answer your question bluntly, I don't think including every single game that has a mention of Souls as an influence to be bloating, I see it as adding to a list. If one example of the list is omitted, then that list is incomplete. As for the rest of the articles, I don't think they need any updating; they're fine as is and removing content would be the opposite of improving them. Osh33m (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your logic is exactly how we get bloated articles filled with WP:EXAMPLECRUFT and WP:NOTCATALOG problems. Keep influences down to a manageable level, with only the most notable examples listed. 15 random games that feature a bonfire-like checkpoint system or whatever do not all need to be included here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about the Legacy section, yeah? Why would adding to a sentence in a paragraph be considered bloat? Osh33m (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but it's been a month since the original post and you still fail to understand what I'm trying to say? @Sergecross73 and Masem: am I making sense here or not? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Dissident had it right here: The fact that the definition of "souls-like" is so vague (even vaguer than roguelike) means that it makes no sense to try to catalog every instance where one person may have called a game souls-like. We should stick to the cases where there is generally routine agreement of multiple RSes that it is a souls-like, until a time where a firm definition of what "souls-like" is exists and we can then quantity objectively under that. --Masem (t) 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that it’s WP:EXAMPLECRUFT, and disagree with the WP:OSE-like defense that parity with other articles would be a reason to retain it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Then how would you have the article? Leave it the way it is now? Osh33m (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Elden Ring should be considered part of the Souls Series rather than related to it

https://www.pcgamer.com/george-r-r-martin-elden-ring-is-a-sequel-to-dark-souls/

RR Martin who is one of the lead writers for Elden Ring, has said it is a sequel to Dark Souls, not a spiritual successor or related, but a sequel.

• It's no more a Souls game than Bloodborne or Sekiro is. Martin isn't directly connected to the series other than world-building for Elden Ring, so I'd take his understanding of the games lightly. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Martin is still a key writer on Elden Ring and has worked with Miyazaki, why shouldn't we take his words at face value if it doesn't contradict anything presented? Miyazaki sought out Martin for "giving him the creative freedom to write the overarching backstory of the game's universe." If Martin is the one working on the games universe and he confirms that it's part of Souls and Miyazaki hasn't said anything that contradicts this, why shouldn't we take his understanding seriously? Babyclav (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical too. Is anyone else corroborating this stance? Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think what Martin meant is that Elden Ring is a successor to Dark Souls just in the same way that Souls games collectively are successors to King's Field. His actual quote reads:

"I've played some videogames. I'm not a big video gamer. But the game is called the Elden Ring and it's a sequel to a game that came out a few years ago called Dark Souls and it came out of Japan."

And if we take that quote for face value, it is factually wrong because the sequel to Dark Souls is Dark Souls 2. So I honestly think he meant that Elden Ring is a sequel to Dark Souls as a series. --Osh33m (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we split "Soulslike" into its own page?

I know that there has been a lot of discussion about this being a real genre or not but considering the number of games that have been created that are similar to this series from both big publishers and indie devs, I was wondering if it's time to split this section and make it is own separate page. My main reasoning for this is not just the many different games that are similar in style but also the use of the term "Soulslike" to describe these types of games from both gamers and professional media outlets. The term has become more mainstream and is even used by developers to describe their own games. The same thing happened with the term Metroidvania where it was mainly thought of as an unofficial genre for adventure games until developers and gamers started using the term more and more. Even the producer of Metroid Dread, Yoshio Sakamoto, used the term to justify making a new 2D Metroid game after seeing the success of so many Metroidvania games. I think that the genre has come to a point where it is legitimate now and deserves its own dedicated entry. What do you guys think? Terence0709 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't split out articles just because they've become "legitimate", we only do that for size and scope reasons. At this time there would be no real benefit to having a standalone article since nearly all of what we'd write about it fits nicely here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not now it works. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the discussion opener is a blocked sock. Besides socking, their block is partially due to improper splits and disruption in relation to. -- ferret (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The overwelming majority of the From community consider Bloodborne and Elden Ring to be Souls games. It is incredibly silly for the only thing preventing a game from being a Souls game is not having the word 'Souls' in the title.

Bloodborne and Elden Ring are Souls games. The large majority of the community thinks of them as such. Go find any forum relating to the 'Souls Series' and people will be discussing Bloodborne, and now Elden Ring as well. It is extremely silly to exclude them just for not having the word 'Souls' in the title. If it was called Elden Souls and the word 'rune' was replaced with 'soul' with some other word changes, but the world, overall story, gameplay etc was unchanged then Elden Ring would be in this article as a Souls game. Take a moment and think just how dumb that is that being in the series hinges off of a single word being in the title. This article is at odds with the Souls community.

We don't write according to "communities" or "fandoms". We write according to what we can verify by reliables sources. Reliable, in the Wikipedia context, means professional publications. Your IGN and Gamespots of the world. If you want to be persuasive, you need to show evidence of what reliables sources say. Vague allusions to a generic fandom don't work here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The moniker 'Souls Series' was made by the fandom. Game industry news journalists (that you referenced) are wildly inconsistent with what they refer to as a 'Souls game'. Vague opinions by news journalists don't work here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Task876 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't even cite any stances from any journalists, so your attempt at a witty comeback falls pretty flat here. I'm not even necessarily saying your proposed change is wrong. I'm just saying your reasoning won't on Wikipedia. If you want your proposed change to happen, you'll need a better argument. You've cited, without evidence, a consensus amongst the fandom. What you need to be persuasive, is evidence among published reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You referenced IGN and Gamespot, which every article you could possibly cite by them is written by one in a large team of journalists. Your comprehension is what fell flat. Also, here is a "reliable" source like IGN and Gamespot saying Bloodborne and Elden Ring are Souls games. Oh look, another one. Oh look, another one. You can find just as many that also distinguishes Bloodborne and Elden Ring from the Souls series. This article at the very least needs to stress more that the term 'Souls series' widely varies in definition. Someone is going to read this article and get very confused when they see forums and articles calling Bloodborne and Elden Ring Souls games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Task876 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is why I've proposed just renaming this article to "Dark Souls (series)" while keeping every other game as a related title, including Demon's. Elden Ring is Dark Souls 4 in every aspect but since the name is different we can't group it as a proper Souls game. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, you have at least presented an argument that isn't an auto-fail anymore. But now, as you say, there are plenty of sources that don't call them Souls games, but rather, call them Souls spiritual successors - like AV Club and GamesRadar. Beyond that, Eurogamer mentions how even From Software themselves call it a "spiritual successor". Free free to propose wording changes/additions based off of the wording of reliable sources. But our aim is just to be understandable to general audiences and consistent across Wikipedia itself. There's no requirement for parity and consistency with the fandom itself. That's not what we're doing here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I just want to point out that when I first drafted the article, it was titled Dark Souls (series) but the consensus was to change it to Souls (series). At this point I think it could go either way. Honestly I still believe it's best if the opening started off as "The Souls series or the Dark Souls series is a series of action role-playing games developed by FromSoftware." --Osh33m (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be about the Dark Souls series instead?

Dark Souls has its own series of three games, but Demon's Souls is no more related to it than Bloodborne, Sekiro and Elden Ring are. While the community refers to all these games as "Souls", it is mostly an easy way to define games developed by From Software that follow a similar design philosophy, nothing about it is official. It makes little sense to make up a so-called "Souls" series that only includes Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, which are two different IPs for all intents and purposes, while excluding the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.100.154.123 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree but most others here don't. In my opinion we should rename this page to Dark Souls, move Dark Souls the game to Dark Souls (video game), and include Demon's, Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring as significant but separate parts of the newly renamed article. Literally the only reason Demon's is on this article is because it has Souls in the name (which makes publications just call it a Souls game despite the IPs being owned by two separate companies). If Elden Ring was called Elden Souls it would be going through the same exact thing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not just call this article Dark Souls series and move Demon's Souls to the Related games section? What would the "new article" be? --Osh33m (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what I meant. This article would be renamed "Dark Souls" with the original game going to "Dark Souls (video game)". And on this article we'd just include Demon's, Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring as highly related games sharing the same core. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to start up a discussion/RFC/draft proposal or something. It's a major high traffic franchise so I think it's just important to plan it out and get a consensus beforehand. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind is that while we absolutely have a Dark Souls "series", those, plus DS, Bloodborne, Sekiro, and ER would be part of a more informal Souls collection of games with their only tie being that they are from FromSoftware and that they have the Soulslike mechanics. I would even argue that in this way, the Soulslike page can establish that those list of games are the "canonical" soulslike and cover their connections, while leaving Dark Souls (and that it is known as a spiritual successor to Demons Souls) here without going into detail on the others. --Masem (t) 01:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that as well, as it would improve both articles. It seems like there's enough interest here in having a proper discussion about this now, so I'll start up a RFC sometime this weekend unless you or somebody else beats me to it. The only thing that might prove to be troublesome is exactly how we would separate the "canonical" soulslikes from the non-FromSoft games. They were previously dubbed "Soulsborne" prior to the release of Sekiro (but sometimes still are), and I've yet to see any usage of "Soulsbornekiroring". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Just here to second this and Masem's argument above. Change this to "Dark Souls (series)" and expand the Soulslike page to list the From Software games typically referred to as "Souls games" (so including Bloodborne and Elden Ring). The current scope of this page makes no sense. There seems to be a consensus that there is an issue that should be resolved in some way. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been meaning to start a proper RM discussion on it for a while now but other projects have kept me busy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the soulslike page has the Soulsborne distinction spelled in there already, so this only needs the move action to Dark Souls (series). --Masem (t) 23:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. It's clear that Demon's Souls and the three Dark Souls games together are not a coherent series, and the page titling should reflect this. No prejudice to another discussion later on whether the 1st game or the series as a whole is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

---

• Souls (series) → Dark Souls
• Dark Souls → Dark Souls (video game)

– Demon's Souls is a separately owned IP (Sony) from Dark Souls (Bandai Namco). The only reason Demon's Souls is included here while Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring are not is literally because they lack Souls in the title. My proposal would see this article moved to Dark Souls and the existing Dark Souls article to Dark Souls (video game) per WP:NCVG, while keeping a section regarding the "Soulsborne" games for how often they are cited as a single franchise despite any nomenclature and IPs differences. Alternatively, this can be covered in the Soulslike article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support, per my own rational in above talk page discussion. We may need to consider how to handle Demons' Souls --Masem (t) 17:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• comment - reformatted the RM as a multi-move per OP's stated wishes that two pages be moved. -- Netoholic @ 11:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. We do not have, for instance, an article on the "-shock" series. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per earlier talk page discussion and rationale for move. Cases such as this where different IPs have similar names and development lineage are handled similarly to what is proposed, as with System Shock and Bioshock (series) as mentioned by Netoholic, and Xenosaga, Xenogears, Xenoblade et al. As far as I am aware there is no support nor precedent for condensing these into "Shock series" or "Xeno series" or the like, so this case should be handled similarly.Joyce-stick (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  There's is a Xeno (series) article technically, but that's different, that spawned from the President of Nintendo directly labeling it as such, which led to its usage. I don't oppose your rationale though, just clearing that up in case anyone else notices it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support The release of Elden Ring made the idea of a "-Souls" series iffy at best. There is now no real coherent way to describe the similar games besides "Soulslikes" for which there is already an article, so we might as well make this article entirely about the Dark Souls sub-series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The general rule on Wikipedia is that when a title needs very little clarification, no parentheses are needed. When we consider the ongoing influence of Dark Souls the video game, and its recognisability, it is perhaps deserving of its own page.

"Dark Souls (series)" would make sense – under which we would have the three Dark Souls games.

As for Demon's Souls, Elden Ring, Bloodborne and Sekiro, it's undeniably difficult to give them a neat and totally accurate category instead of something clunky like "FromSoftware's Souls games..." On this I have no suggestion. But I hope everyone agrees that "Soulsborne" is silly ^_^ Momiji Moomin (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but we have had past cases where the first game gets the disambiguation instead of the series article. I'd be fine with either as long as we get rid of the status quo. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Almost all series/franchises eventually supplant the original game. I really doubt it's specifically the original release of Dark Souls that continues to have influence and recognisability, versus the on-going evolution of the series. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editnotice notice

I have added an editnotice to the article at Template:Editnotices/Page/Dark Souls to inform incoming editors about the apparent consensus here to stop lumping Demon's Souls into this series. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)