Template talk:FromSoftware

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Eternal Ring?[edit]

Maybe Eternal Ring should be added to the "related games" section of this template, as it is also developed by From Software and has some similarities with the King's Field series.--89.168.91.246 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Armored Core[edit]

I might officially propose this in a bit, but just preliminary, would anything be opposed to merging the Template:Armored Core series template into this one? -- ferret (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly done. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Century's Episode[edit]

I have WP:BOLDly merged the template for Another Century's Episode as well. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Bloodborne[edit]

Is Bloodborne considered a spin-off of the Souls series? —017Bluefield (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Just as Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are two completely separate original IPs, Bloodborne is its own IP. Yet they all share the same elements that define what a "Souls" (sometimes referred to as "Soulsborne") game is, therefore classifying all 3 series as a part of a bigger series that goes by that name. It is inaccurate to separate them in the same way you separate other much-less-related FromSoftware games such as Shadow Tower and King's Field. Therefore, the 3 different IPs are best regarded as "sub-series" of their own, but, when combined, as a "series" known as the "Souls" series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.13.22.37 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not officially, no. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Not according to it's creator, per this source. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Mere words, merely developer's opinion, and entirely to convince people that this series is not going through series fatigue. Bloodborne is a Souls spinoff that uses the Souls engine to make a more aggressive action game; this is a fact. It is played by people who play Souls games, and Dark Souls III is being played by people who played Bloodborne; these are facts. Reliable sources, which developer opinion is not, will talk all day about Bloodborne as if it were a Souls game; this is fact. We do this for all those Dynasty Warriors spinoffs, especially the ones that don't have "Warriors" or "無双" in their titles.

Dark Souls is not an "original IP", it's an attempt to get around IP laws in a way that very few games do. Most developers try to make retro revivals to ancient games, which rarely resemble the original game much after so many years of not thinking about the original game, and they end up running into IP law. Dark Souls is merely "Demon's Souls II" in a way that Sony can't really do anything about. If there is ever a Demon's Souls II, it will be directly based on whatever the previous Souls game was. 71.76.240.132 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should happen at Souls (series). -- ferret (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It really only pertains to the template, though. 71.76.240.132 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
How? If it's not part of the series, then it doesn't belong with the series in the template. -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Demon's Souls is considered a part of the Souls series because the creator, Mizazaki, talked about them in interviews as single series (despite the copyrights being owned by two different companies), but always made sure to clearly state how Bloodborne differed from them and stood on it's own. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an incredibly misleading decision on the part of From, it might even be done for legal purposes, and it is probably a mistranslation somehow. It literally doesn't stand on its own, according to everyone else on the planet. This nonsense really needs to stop. 71.76.240.132 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter their reasons, it's backed by sources that it's not considered the same series. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You are just hoping that FromSoft made a mistake. Common consensus settled on Bloodborne being a related title only, not a primary Souls series game. Most reliable sources even make a distinction, so I'm not sure where you are getting "according to everyone else on the planet", which is clearly false. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Why exactly should we adopt your opinion against the official word of the developer's and publishers'? All this "Soulsborne" stuff is original research, which is to say it is fanmade, and not only that, the entire fanbase won't even agree with the sentiment that you're putting through. I know for a fact that there are Souls fans who acknowledge Bloodborne to be an extremely similar but separate game from the Souls series. Of course I cannot prove it but that's not the point; which is, reliable sources, including the developer, publisher, and news outlets, write about the Souls series including Demon's Souls and the Dark Souls games, while still mentioning Bloodborne as a companion title but NOT a part of the series. Osh33m (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how so many people willingly delude themselves about something so simple. There is clearly some long-standing politics revolving around Bloodborne on Wikipedia. I refuse to entertain these politics. I do not have time for such insanity.

It is definitely not my opinion. It is the opinion of the developers that a game highly based on and developmentally part of one series somehow isn't, simply because they said so. It is truly delusional to think that this is somehow original research. It is your opinion that this opinion says what you think it says or that it even matters at any point. It is truly delusional to ignore the millions who came to Bloodborne specifically from Dark Souls II and who went to Dark Souls III specifically from Bloodborne; any review on the internet will be talking about their relation.

Salamander is a Gradius series game. It's not called Gradius, and it's always been treated as a spinoff, but its status as a Gradius series game has never been questioned. Bloodborne is a Souls game. It's not called Souls, and it's always been treated as a spinoff, but its status as a Souls game is only questioned by this website. You would never question Salamander, but you will always question Bloodborne.

You have an entire policy, the "other stuff exists" policy, dedicated to allowing and enforcing this behavior. Invoke that meaningless policy all you like; I can't do anything about it. That policy is being used completely separate from the spirit of the message, the idea that we shouldn't hypercorrect and that we should examine each case to determine if consistency can be reached. I will say that other stuff exists, so we should work for a sense of consistency, not allow hundreds of different informal groups to "claim" articles and do whatever they want.

When you cannot even understand the very basics of what something is, all truth becomes lies and all lies become truth. So many knowledgeable people avoid your website like the plague because they do not have the time or the patience for the endless lies and the politics. I wipe my hands clean of this filth and will never bother you again. Congratulations, you won. 71.76.240.132 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like your passion is clouding your judgement. FromSoftware, Sony, and even Microsoft reps all said Bloodborne is a separate entity, and that's what matters. Not the fans' reception/perception. Osh33m (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This. We go with what reliable sources say, along with the official stance by the companies involved. Everything else should be considered original research. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)