The tag implication #51450 five_nights_at_freddy's:_security_breach_ruin -> five_nights_at_freddy's:_security_breach has been approved.

Reason: Ruin is Security Breach's DLC with it's own unique models and characters

I think this should be an alias. It's the same game, just with some extra paid content added after release.

watsit said:
I think this should be an alias. It's the same game, just with some extra paid content added after release.

It's unique with the characters and versions of characters who are not in the main Security Breach game

fuyu_graycen said:
It's unique with the characters and versions of characters who are not in the main Security Breach game

It's still part of the Security Breach game, like any other DLC being part of its base game. It's not a separate game.

watsit said:
I think this should be an alias. It's the same game, just with some extra paid content added after release.

Have you played it?
Sorry, I disagree, it may take place in the same location but it may as well be a different experience alltogether.

fuyu_graycen said:
It's unique with the characters and versions of characters who are not in the main Security Breach game

That alone isn't worth a separate game tag, let alone a DLC sub-tag for an individual game. We don't have tags for the Isle of Armor or the Frost Tundra DLC for Pokemon Sword and Shield, despite them too having unique characters, locations, and pokemon that aren't in the base game. Even the base Sword and Shield games don't have their own tags, despite also having unique characters and locations separate from other games in the series. I don't know FNAF well enough to say whether the individual games should or shouldn't have separate tags (and it's very unclear when or why games in a series are kept separate vs aliased together), but since DLC is generally even less different from the base game compared to a proper sequel, it doesn't seem a separate tag is warranted to me. It's an optional paid add-on for Security Breach, not a new entry in the series.

closetpossum said:
Have you played it?
Sorry, I disagree, it may take place in the same location but it may as well be a different experience alltogether.

If it's that different, it would be a new game instead of a DLC. Being a DLC is generally indicative of it being more related (and/or not being as different) to the base game, compared to being a new entry in the series.

watsit said:
If it's that different, it would be a new game instead of a DLC. Being a DLC is generally indicative of it being more related (and/or not being as different) to the base game, compared to being a new entry in the series.

There are exceptions, like Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, although you can make an argument that that's a completely separate game.

vulpes_artifex said:
There are exceptions, like Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, although you can make an argument that that's a completely separate game.

Yeah, there are rare exceptions, like Blood Dragon. Most DLC isn't like that, though. Generally when DLC starts developing into something bigger and more unique, it's spun off into a sequel (see Tears of the Kingdom as a recent example, which started as DLC for Breath of the Wild, but as they kept getting more ideas for it and expanding on it, it changed to be a sequel instead).

watsit said:

If it's that different, it would be a new game instead of a DLC. Being a DLC is generally indicative of it being more related (and/or not being as different) to the base game, compared to being a new entry in the series.

man, that's so surface level thinking, Watsit. Many games have DLCs that are different from the base game. This is one of those games.