sales2099 said:
Your just arguing semantics and my not-precise choice of wording. I bought DMC4 to get my 3rd person beat-em-up fix, thus GOW wasn't a factor to buy a PS3 (not that I would have anyway lol).
In this case, I didn't buy DS2 so by getting this remake, I wouldn't consider Bloodborne as a reason to buy the PS4 (not that I would have anyway).
|
Lol that's not semantics. That's facts. That's the definition.
"I bought DMC4 to get my 3rd person beat-em-up fix" yea...because that was all you could buy. But if it were as simple as that, then no need to buy Halo to get your "1st person sci-fi shooter fix" because you've got Destiny. Oh wait...you are gonna get Halo still, right? It's because you have the ability to buy it (as opposed to GoW). I wouldn't be foolish enough to say "I have Destiny, so no need to play Halo. I got my fix", especially because it makes no sense to miss out on a completely different game, with a different story, different setting, etc. (which I'm going to go out on a limb and say would be your reason for differentiating it from Destiny) just because the gameplay was similar. Otherwise I wouldn't have played, for example, both Legend of Dragoon and FFIX. But hey, different strokes. If having one game trumps your potential enjoyment of multiple other games, because you got your "fix", that's good for you. I, personally, wouldn't not play Battlefield just because I played CoD, but that's just me. You seem to be that way, so I'd only expect you to own 10-12 games over the course of any given generation =/.
I also find it ironic coming from the guy who's trumpeted on here for a long time "Xbox 360 has more AAA, AA, and A games than PS3, so objectively it has the better library" but now, having less games is ok because you can "get a fix" with one game. Are you not gonna be interested in Bloodborne 2 (if that were to happen) as well, because you can get your "fix" with DS2?