Soul vs Soulless in video games

[Alex]

Since people seem to be arguing about that, I think what people usually mean by saying that a game (or one of its aspects) has "soul" is simply that it does something in a way that is not stereotypical. In this case, people are mostly talking about graphics. If the graphics have a visual identity to themselves, that help make them stand out in some way, people may say they have a soul. On the other hand, if the graphics give the first impression that the game is one of the dime a dozen made in unity or in Unreal Engine, or even in RPGMaker or some other cookie cutter tool; possibly using resource packs or other recycled assets; then the graphics are preceived as souless. Since this is a much more common problem with modern games using store assets, a lot of what is considered "souless" will be modern 3d. The problem might be exarcebated by the modern focus in graphical fidelity making it hard or undesired for games to develop their own visual style. Another aspect that will help make a game seem souless is "cal arts" drawings, which while far from graphical realism tend to have a very samey look.

Note that a game can fail to fall in either region. A game might have graphics that don't look particularly derivative, but fail to establish a graphical identity. I would argue that is the case with that new Monkey Island game. Which brings another aspect to the discussion, a game being so ugly it is hard to call say it has "soul". I think ugliness may indeed be an obstacle to perceive an unique aspect to the visuals; but it is not an insurmountable one, as Prosper drawings show.

 

[Zoo]

Make it a challenge and post games you don't like but have soul.

Super Mario 64. Revolutionary 3D game, it has better better gameplay than many newer titles, but somehow I can really enjoy it. (And I love the Spyro games from PS1 and the first Jak & Daxter from PS2.)

Souls games. I have only finished Demon's Souls. It is a very good game with great atmosphere, but has many faults. It certainly has soul, but I don't like it very much. Maybe Souls-like games not my cup of tea.

Fable. Bad-mediocre action-adventure, terrible RPG. Maybe its britishness is forced, but it is not soulless.

Jet Set Radio Future. I have only played this one from the series, it has gameplay and soul, but I can"t stand its style.

Shadow of the Colossus. Not bad, but I didn't really enjoyed the gameplay loop.

 

[Silverfish]

Make it a challenge and post games you don't like but have soul.

Myst and Ico.

 

[El Presidente]

ah another old good new bad thread how original

SOVL

Soulless

 

[Lemming42]

Goes to show it's subjective since none of the WarCraft games have much "soul" to me, they all look like they were carefully designed for maximum franchise-forming appeal, even WC1 where everything looks kinda like shit. WoW and WC3 have got to hold some responsibility for the "make everything look like garish cartoony shit" trend that we're still dealing with today.

In fact pretty much all Blizzard games feel like they've been focus-grouped to hell and back and designed to appeal to the widest possible audience (and I'm saying that as someone who likes a lot of their stuff).

 

[Viata]

I don't know. Rock N' Roll Racing was the shit.

 

[El Presidente]

Blackthorne's intro is the coolest shit ever, and pure soul:



Also Lost Vikings is a good example of a game I don't really like very much but is pretty soulful

I don't know. Rock N' Roll Racing was the shit.

Yeah I loved it. I even have a shirt of it it's the only game related thing like this that I have, and it's awesome (and full of my cat's hair )

 

[Alex]

Warcraft 1, 2 and Diablo all looked pretty good and non derivative to me. I suppose you could argue that both early warcraft games ddidn't distinguish themselves too much visually, but neither did they look like cookie cutter products, made without thought or care. Diablo on the other hand was very particular in how it looked.

 

[Lyric Suite]

All Blizzard games back then had a lot of soul, including Warcraft 2 and Diablo 1.

Something more commercial started to creep in with Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2, but in the main those games were still pretty solid.

I think it's only with Warcraft 3 that i felt they were starting to lose it, and the process of decline continued with WoW until Blizzard ceased to be Blizzard by the time Cataclysm came out.

 

[Lord of Riva]

Warcraft 1, 2 and Diablo all looked pretty good and non derivative to me. I suppose you could argue that both early warcraft games ddidn't distinguish themselves too much visually, but neither did they look like cookie cutter products, made without thought or care. Diablo on the other hand was very particular in how it looked.

Diablo 1 still looks pretty amazing, especially compared to those coming after even 2 was a huge decline we don't want to talk about what came after.

Dungeon Keeper had a really cool look as well.

 

[Gerrard]

A very to-the-point example

vs

 

[Alex]

All Blizzard games back then had a lot of soul, including Warcraft 2 and Diablo 1.

Something more commercial started to creep in with Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2, but in the main those games were still pretty solid.

I think it's only with Warcraft 3 that i felt they were starting to lose it, and the process of decline continued with WoW until Blizzard ceased to be Blizzard by the time Cataclysm came out.

I wouldn't say Warcraft 1 or 2 are souless. But I do think they are less distinguished than Diablo. Warcraft 1 and 2 reminds me a lot of older RPG illustrations, especially those of the Fighting Fantasy books. For me, this is a very good thing, but I can understan why someone could say it makes it stand out less.

 

[Maxie]

A very to-the-point example

vs

they nerfed it

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I love many old 3D games (90s), but not a single one for the graphics. (Okay, there are maybe exceptions, like Grim Fandango, Blade Runner, Thief and Populous: The Beginning.) However, I find more games from the early 2000s visionally surptisingly reasonable (e.g. Mafia, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper).

Grim Fandango is an excellent example of great concept art, a strong aesthetic sense, and stylization appropriate to the game's setting and tone contributing to 3D graphics that still look good despite being dated in their technical aspects.

 

[Elttharion]

A very to-the-point example

vs

Speaking of the witcher, from this

To this

 

[Lyric Suite]

All Blizzard games back then had a lot of soul, including Warcraft 2 and Diablo 1.

Something more commercial started to creep in with Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2, but in the main those games were still pretty solid.

I think it's only with Warcraft 3 that i felt they were starting to lose it, and the process of decline continued with WoW until Blizzard ceased to be Blizzard by the time Cataclysm came out.

I wouldn't say Warcraft 1 or 2 are souless. But I do think they are less distinguished than Diablo. Warcraft 1 and 2 reminds me a lot of older RPG illustrations, especially those of the Fighting Fantasy books. For me, this is a very good thing, but I can understan why someone could say it makes it stand out less.

Being distinguished isn't the only variable.

Warcraft was supposed to be Warhammer originally but back then Games Workshop were retards so Blizzard just came out with a similar setting of their own. It still had its own swag though. The music was great, the sounds of the units were bad ass (compare the paladin from Warcraft 2 to the pussified version in Warcraft 3), even the characterization of the factions was great. Orcs were evil bastards instead of that noble savage bullshit they introduced with Warcraft III and the humans were only marginally less violent and brutal. Hell, even the elves were cool.

 

[Sunsetspawn]

I've never been able to figure out exactly why, but 3D graphics from the late 2000s in particular look awful.

Yeah

They have that distinct "slightly improved Deus Ex Invisible War" look and feel that aged much poorer than far older stuff. Also PS3-era lighting is just awful. Not coincidentally it's the age of the exaggerated bloom everywhere.

This is unironically my favourite era of gaming. The graphics aren't perfect but they were not stupid enough to waste resources on realistic leaf texture. This is the era where technology caught up to the imagination so you could actually make the games you always envisioned. Dead rising is THE zombie experience because the 360 allowed actual hordes. Halo 3 had huge arenas with multiple vehicles, scarabs and infantry all fighting. Assassin's creed finally let you really explore a huge city that wasn't just blocks with doors painted on them. I agree some of it is ugly, but in terms of creativity and technology this is the peak cross over point. Everything after this generation has too much invested in graphics and repeating what was done here with little to no innovation. Even Assassin's creed 20's only real change is they copied Demon's souls and far cry a bit more than they already were.

You do not appear to be an old man yelling at a cloud, so what are you doing on the codex?

 

[Viata]

Slowly turning into that.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

Warcraft 1, 2 and Diablo all looked pretty good and non derivative to me. I suppose you could argue that both early warcraft games ddidn't distinguish themselves too much visually, but neither did they look like cookie cutter products, made without thought or care. Diablo on the other hand was very particular in how it looked.

All Blizzard games back then had a lot of soul, including Warcraft 2 and Diablo 1.

Something more commercial started to creep in with Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2, but in the main those games were still pretty solid.

I think it's only with Warcraft 3 that i felt they were starting to lose it, and the process of decline continued with WoW until Blizzard ceased to be Blizzard by the time Cataclysm came out.

I wouldn't say Warcraft 1 or 2 are souless. But I do think they are less distinguished than Diablo. Warcraft 1 and 2 reminds me a lot of older RPG illustrations, especially those of the Fighting Fantasy books. For me, this is a very good thing, but I can understan why someone could say it makes it stand out less.

Warcraft was ripping off Warhammer. Which is it's self a soulless entity made up of stolen material from better media. If it was released today it would be called Soulless. The games were fun, but they're the third dude in the human centipede known as fantasy media. Tolkien to Morecock to GW to Blizzard with none of the depth retained.

 

[Vic]

All Blizzard games back then had a lot of soul, including Warcraft 2 and Diablo 1.

Something more commercial started to creep in with Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2, but in the main those games were still pretty solid.

I think it's only with Warcraft 3 that i felt they were starting to lose it, and the process of decline continued with WoW until Blizzard ceased to be Blizzard by the time Cataclysm came out.

well said, but WC3 was peak Blizzard, Arthas' story is one of the best in video game history (maybe I'm being slightly biased) and the gameplay holds up to this day, very solid and polished.

 

[Zlaja]

Cover Edition

Soul

Soulless

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Soulless

Nah
There's still soul to Oblivion

absolutely not

 

[Gerrard]

W2 still had some soul in-game in areas like dialogues, but the presentation was soulless as the cover shows: the mug, the egdy font, the consolized UI. Also they dropped the main music theme from the first game for some ungodly reason.

 

[Viata]

Cover Edition

Soul

Soulless

You know what is soul in covers? The old ones that looked nothing like the game. Not the stupid Mega Man cover, but the cool Ultima 1 cover, for example. I really miss those kind of covers. They were just the imagination of the artist based on what the game was supposed to be.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

Cover Edition

Soul

Soulless

You know what is soul in covers? The old ones that looked nothing like the game. Not the stupid Mega Man cover, but the cool Ultima 1 cover, for example. I really miss those kind of covers. They were just the imagination of the artist based on what the game was supposed to be.

I bought RE4 as a teenager and I was fucking pissed when it wasn't a lumberjack sim set in the red forest. I returned that garbage and demanded a full refund 20 minutes in!