By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BraLoD said:
SWORDF1SH said:

Just to get your thoughts, you're a clever lad.

Do you agree with these statements. And are they objective statements. 

Bloodborne is a new IP

The new GoW is part of the GoW IP

AC:BF is part of the AC IP

This statement contradicts itself ' That's why it had to be a different IP and name, but that doesn't make it an entirely new franchise or game.'

Gameplay had nothing to do with what games are covered by that IP

 

Do you agree with these subjective statements? 

Rocket League is a spiritual successor to SRPBC.

Bloodborne isn't a spin-off but could be seen as a spiritual successor to Dark Souls 

 

There's were my points in the posts, more so the objective statements. 

I don't need to agree with objective truths, so those 3 at first, no discussion around it.

About the subjective ones, yeah, RL is a spiritual sucessor, but Bloodborne is not an spitirual sucessor.
Bloodborne it's it own thing, thematic, gameplay, lore, but it's okay to consider it as so, it is a close approach to the Souls games, sometimes more to Demon's, sometimes more to Dark. But definitely not a spin-off.

And to add one from me, as I said, I consider TLG a whole with ICO and SOTC, but it's a new IP, no discussion over it.

Seems like you guys are just not having the same discussion, having opinions and facts mixed together makes things hard XP

I was just trying to state when a IP is new and when it's covered by an existing IP but for some reason he/she was getting confused with how a game plays to what an IP is. Check my first response to them. They just then confused the whole situation talking shit. But thank you, I'm not going mad after all.