So do we call them Soulsbornekiro now?
- Thread starter spam musubi
- Start date
There was nevery any reason to put the "borne" on the end of the title. No reason at all.
Sekiro is sufficiently different it's not really a Soulslike in my view.
Sekiro is sufficiently different it's not really a Soulslike in my view.
Developers can make different types of games that are not thematically the same as their previous ones, and they dont need it all smashed together into a word because its just a different game
There's no "souls" in sekiro basically so there's no need to shoehorn it into the "genre"
There's no "souls" in sekiro basically so there's no need to shoehorn it into the "genre"
Oh gosh Souls-Em-Up is too good.
Chlooter needs to be Chalooter so it sounds different when spoken.
Chlooter needs to be Chalooter so it sounds different when spoken.
Sekiro isn't an RPG. They say it's action-adventure.
Plus the gameplay looks nothing like Souls or Bloodborne.
Plus the gameplay looks nothing like Souls or Bloodborne.
OP
OP
Soulsborne is already dumb, Souls-like tells you all you need to know without sounding dumb as hell.
Sekiro is not a Soulslike and is interntionally made to be distinct from Bloodborne and the Souls series. They do NOT go together.
- Souls-like is the genre.
- Soulsborne is the series that includes Demon's Souls, Bloodborne, and the three Dark Souls games.
Sekiro may or may not be covered by the former already, but is too different to be part of the latter, so there's zero need to add its name to either term.
- Soulsborne is the series that includes Demon's Souls, Bloodborne, and the three Dark Souls games.
Sekiro may or may not be covered by the former already, but is too different to be part of the latter, so there's zero need to add its name to either term.
There's nothing to decide, Sekiro is completely missing RPG elements the Souls games have and is more action focused.