Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«958 »
  • Post
  • Reply
EndOfTheWorld
Jul 22, 2004

Not of clay, but smokeless fire made...

Yechezkel posted:

PS1 version of Chrono Trigger is coming this Tuesday to PSN store. No, really, they mean it this time.

Plus a coy comment below from the Square employee saying we might not have to wait much longer for Chrono Cross.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Samurai Sanders
Nov 4, 2003



ImpAtom posted:

The complaint I was addressing was someone who wanted to know why they would buy a game where there is DLC that, all combined, costs more then the core game. Underhanded stuff is dumb no matter what but in the case of Castlevania, the only real one to make an argument for is Julius and Maria and the Pyramid Stage (all of which I believe come with the core game in the PS3 version), the rest was added over time.

Believe me, I'm not defending bullshit where they cut stuff out of the game.
But that's just it, when it's that much DLC, how am I supposed to believe that the game is complete without it?

I guess the bigger issue is that, across all media, I want things that are clearly defined as "complete" from the very beginning. It is, for example, why I greatly prefer movies to TV shows, or one-off novels to long running series. And it's why this DLC thing is just a slap in the face to me.

For Dark Souls, they came right up front and said that the game will be complete when they release it and have no plan to add anything later. Hell loving yeah.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

FLAVA FLAV!!!!!

Samurai Sanders posted:

But that's just it, when it's that much DLC, how am I supposed to believe that the game is complete without it?

I guess the bigger issue is that, across all media, I want things that are clearly defined as "complete" from the very beginning. It is, for example, why I greatly prefer movies to TV shows, or one-off novels to long running series. And it's why this DLC thing is just a slap in the face to me.

For Dark Souls, they came right up front and said that the game will be complete when they release it and have no plan to add anything later. Hell loving yeah.

The problem is that if nobody ever even mentioned it or even bothered putting it on the disk, would you even know the difference?

...!
Oct 5, 2003

Let's go trophy hunting!

SEGA just applied for a trademark for "Yakuza: Dead Souls." I guess we know now what the western version of Of The End will be called...

Samurai Sanders
Nov 4, 2003



blackguy32 posted:

The problem is that if nobody ever even mentioned it or even bothered putting it on the disk, would you even know the difference?
Well, these days it's an expectation that is built up based on past experience. In many cases I know that that the thing you buy on the disc and put in your PS3 at launch isn't going to be the entire product of that dev's work on the game, like it would have been in years last. That's what bugs me.

Seriously though, what IS all that DLC for the Castlevania game?

Tamagod Sushi
Oct 26, 2009

One Bad Muthapaca

...! posted:

SEGA just applied for a trademark for "Yakuza: Dead Souls." I guess we know now what the western version of Of The End will be called...

Dark Souls x Yakuza spin off. Prepare to HEAT

sentrygun
Dec 29, 2009

FUCKIN
ASSHOLE


Besides Day 1 DLC being a bullshit way to deal with used game sales, my big issue with DLC is it being released so much later for games that don't really last that long. A couple of things get it right, like Fallout DLC that adds an entirely new story section to explore, or DLC that adds brand new levels (as in, not just old set pieces and characters hacked together in a different look and sold as a brand new thing), but DLC that just slaps in a character to be used on the stages you've already gotten enough of or gives you a couple of new weapons to use on the content that you've played out already are just annoying.

Still, the idea of being able to say "oops, we didn't get this stuff done before release, let's just cut it and sell it when we get around to finishing it" is probably the shittiest thing. I don't really know about the tight deadlines game developers are under, so maybe it's a bit more justified looking at it from their perspective, but from what I can see it's just kinda lovely.

Armor-Piercing
Sep 22, 2009

Nightly dance
of bleeding swords


With games that have larger and more expensive DLC, I end up either waiting for a "complete" edition or subtract the DLC cost from what I'm willing to pay for a game. I'm buying Dark Souls at launch. I bought Castlevania: Lords of Shadow for $5 on clearance, so I'm okay with eventually getting the $20 of DLC if I want it. I'm still waiting on a complete Red Dead Redemption release, and don't really want to buy the game until it happens.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Watch that tongue... sticky!


Samurai Sanders posted:

But that's just it, when it's that much DLC, how am I supposed to believe that the game is complete without it?

I guess the bigger issue is that, across all media, I want things that are clearly defined as "complete" from the very beginning. It is, for example, why I greatly prefer movies to TV shows, or one-off novels to long running series. And it's why this DLC thing is just a slap in the face to me.

For Dark Souls, they came right up front and said that the game will be complete when they release it and have no plan to add anything later. Hell loving yeah.

The thing is that it isn't a matter of complete or incomplete. A product can always have extra content added to it, for good or for ill. A movie can have sequels or spinoffs or Director's Cuts or whatever which add new content or change things or whatever. Same for novels in fact, where I can go out and buy changed or updated versions of one-off novels released later. "Complete" is a nebulous term that lasts only until whatever point someone decides to add further to the product.

Samurai Sanders posted:

Well, these days it's an expectation that is built up based on past experience. In many cases I know that that the thing you buy on the disc and put in your PS3 at launch isn't going to be the entire product of that dev's work on the game, like it would have been in years last. That's what bugs me.

Seriously though, what IS all that DLC for the Castlevania game?

The thing is, you're assuming a basic A or B thing here. There are certainly developers who cut poo poo out of their game to be sleazy, but some of it stuff that would have been flat-out cut if DLC didn't exist due to budget or time constraints. They used to do this stuff on PC games too where you'd get Expansion Packs later that contained content that wasn't ready or cut from the core release and got added in a for-pay product you could buy later.

Again, there's a very real difference between "We're selling DLC that wouldn't exist if we didn't have DLC as an option" vs "We're selling DLC because gently caress you give us $5." The latter is bullshit.

The DLC is additional characters and harder levels with new loot.

ImpAtom fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 01:02

Samurai Sanders
Nov 4, 2003



ImpAtom posted:

The thing is that it isn't a matter of complete or incomplete. A product can always have extra content added to it, for good or for ill. A movie can have sequels or spinoffs or Director's Cuts or whatever which add new content or change things or whatever. Same for novels in fact, where I can go out and buy changed or updated versions of one-off novels released later. "Complete" is a nebulous term that lasts only until whatever point someone decides to add further to the product.
If you are someone who actually LIKES director's cuts and sequels and updated versions of novels, then I guess this conversation doesn't have anywhere to go. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

edit: do you remember in Amadeus when the emperor complains that Mozart's composition had "too many notes" and his response was "it has exactly the number of notes that I intended"? That's what I want.

J
Jun 10, 2001



Armor-Piercing posted:

I'm still waiting on a complete Red Dead Redemption release, and don't really want to buy the game until it happens.

Not sure if you were already aware by your wording, but they are doing exactly this - Red Dead Redemption GOTY edition, on Oct 11th. Has the game + all the DLC packs.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Watch that tongue... sticky!


Samurai Sanders posted:

If you are someone who actually LIKES director's cuts and sequels and updated versions of novels, then I guess this conversation doesn't have anywhere to go. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

edit: do you remember in Amadeus when the emperor complains that Mozart's composition had "too many notes" and his response was "it has exactly the number of notes that I intended"? That's what I want.

You're talking excited about Dark Souls, which is a sequel to Demon's Souls in everything but name, so I guess I don't get the "I don't like sequels" stuff from you. But as for director's cuts or improved versions: Sometimes they can actively improve upon the product. I remember that you enjoyed the PS2 remakes of the Super Robot Wars Original Generations titles for example. The initial version is not always the best nor does it match the creator's intent.

And the thing is that a movie, a novel or a video game is not that simple. It's very rare that a creator can include everything they want, especially in a product made by a large number of people on a limited budget. I think it is a fairly rare situation for a creator to look at something they made and go "Yes, this is exactly what I intended." I would make an argument that almost no video game created is exactly what the creator intended when setting out.

DLC can be lovely, but it can also be used as an honest improvement to the game. It can add new levels or new content that extends the value of a game and compliments what is already a stand-alone product or to adjust for the weaknesses and flaws of a game or to allow a developer to finish something they couldn't have normally.

In a perfect world, every creator would have perfect control, an unlimited budget, unlimited time and would never make mistakes, but it isn't a perfect world. These additions to completed versions can make a product honestly better. I'd rather play FFXII-International Edition over the original any day of the week. I'd rather watch the Director's Cut of Alien 3 over the original theatrical version any day because it is a legitimate better film, and I'd rather GOOD DLC exist that can improve upon a game rather then a developer just letting fun ideas fade away.

lovely DLC remains lovely no matter what however. I'm not defending any of that at all, and a lot of DLC is really lovely. I think Horse Armor or Pay $20 To Buy Sunglasses For Your Anime Girl or $15 characters obviously ripped from the game are all trash.

ImpAtom fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 01:19

Armor-Piercing
Sep 22, 2009

Nightly dance
of bleeding swords


J posted:

Not sure if you were already aware by your wording, but they are doing exactly this - Red Dead Redemption GOTY edition, on Oct 11th. Has the game + all the DLC packs.
I wasn't aware, actually. I just remember seeing it come up every so often and assuming it would happen eventually. Won't be able to get it on release what with the dozen other games coming out I want, but I'm glad that's finally there.

Egomaniac
Mar 23, 2006



the truth posted:

Nowadays devs are stripping content from the core game and selling it separately as DLC or a store-specific bonus.

I realize that, but foregoing the DLC has yet to render a game unplayable. As long as it has a beginning, a middle and an end (with gameplay!) it's a complete game.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Watch that tongue... sticky!


Egomaniac posted:

I realize that, but foregoing the DLC has yet to render a game unplayable. As long as it has a beginning, a middle and an end (with gameplay!) it's a complete game.

I think it's worth pointing out that sometimes it doesn't have this. Assassin's Creed 2 actually cut out a few levels and sold them as DLC later because they couldn't finish them, and there are several games with endings which are unsatisfying at best unless you buy DLC to improve upon them.

There's also games like Mass Effect 2 or Kingdom Hearts where the DLC/Expansion Packs can add content that is important to the sequel but is only available in the expanded version of the game, leaving those who didn't buy it missing part of the story or potential extras.

ImpAtom fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 01:22

ShoogaSlim
May 22, 2001

the ghost with the post


I'm glad they're making a "sequel" to Demons Souls because it's a cool game. But I only ever beat one boss before giving up because I just suck poo poo at the game and it's not worth my time to grind through it. Ah well..

In any case I finally got around to playing SotC again tonight and the controls are going to take a little getting used to again but it feels really awesome playing this amazing game again.

Samurai Sanders
Nov 4, 2003



ImpAtom posted:

You're talking excited about Dark Souls, which is a sequel to Demon's Souls in everything but name, so I guess I don't get the "I don't like sequels" stuff from you. But as for director's cuts or improved versions: Sometimes they can actively improve upon the product. The initial version is not always the best nor does it match the creator's intent.

And the thing is that a movie, a novel or a video game is not that simple. It's very rare that a creator can include everything they want, especially in a product made by a large number of people on a limited budget. I think it is a fairly rare situation for a creator to look at something they made and go "Yes, this is exactly what I intended." I would make an argument that almost no video game created is exactly what the creator intended when setting out.

DLC can be lovely, but it can also be used as an honest improvement to the game. It can add new levels or new content that extends the value of a game and compliments what is already a stand-alone product or to compliment the weaknesses and flaws of a game or to allow a developer to finish something they couldn't have normally.
Dark Souls is enough different and improved from Demon's for it not to seem like a sequel to me. Even if Demon's Souls didn't exist, Dark would be complete and awesome all by itself. That's a world away from DLC that just adds characters and weapons, and if you are lucky an environment or two, to an existing game.

People have been making media, calling it finished, and then moving on to make something else, for the entire history of everything. Don't tell me that financial or time constrains or whatever are some new thing that DLC has appeared in order to combat. I think it's a crutch.

I just have a hell of a lot of respect for people who can finish something and say "that's it, this is finished" and THEN start selling it. Incentives in the game world are working against that kind of thing though, towards game content kind of dribbling out slowly over time in a long tail, and that makes me sad.

edit: part of the reason I have that respect is that I don't see it in myself; I keep editing my own posts over and over again. Anyway, I want incentives that cause more development energies to go into new and fresh products rather than continuations of previous ones, and I see DLC as an incentive AGAINST that.

Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 01:43

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Watch that tongue... sticky!


Samurai Sanders posted:

edit: part of the reason I have that respect is that I don't see it in myself; I keep editing my own posts over and over again. Anyway, I want incentives that cause more development energies to go into new and fresh products rather than continuations of previous ones, and I see DLC as an incentive AGAINST that.

I can sort of understand this but it's worth noting that the development necessary for DLC is extremely different from the development necessary for a new game. It isn't an either/or situation. Development teams can work on only so much at once and not everyone on a team is equal.

It's also worth noting that extending the value of a game is different from creating an entirely new game. Someone who wants Game A may not want Game B and DLC allows Game A to continue to receive new content. For someone who has relatively limited tastes in games or doesn't buy a lot of new titles or whatever, getting a $10 DLC to their favorite game is a lot more appealing then a $60 game they don't want to play.

Code Jockey
Jan 24, 2006
I shoot my gun and Java be dancin'


...! posted:

SEGA just applied for a trademark for "Yakuza: Dead Souls." I guess we know now what the western version of Of The End will be called...

YYYYEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS

Tamagod Sushi posted:

Dark Souls x Yakuza spin off. Prepare to HEAT

This concept... makes me happy.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Watch that tongue... sticky!


I had heard that Yazuka The End wasn't very good. Did I hear wrong?

Policenaut
Jul 11, 2008



The demo was pretty mediocre.

GreenBuckanneer
Sep 15, 2007


the truth posted:

Nowadays devs are stripping content from the core game and selling it separately as DLC or a store-specific bonus.

Yes, this poo poo pisses me off like you wouldn't believe.

Code Jockey
Jan 24, 2006
I shoot my gun and Java be dancin'


Policenaut posted:

The demo was pretty mediocre.

Unless the game itself ends up being broken buggy garbage then I'm still going to buy it on launch and marathon the hell out of it and probably like it, I imagine, because I love the characters and environment so much.

And then sacrifice yet another goat to the deity responsible for localization, hoping he'll grant my request for Kenzan.

Samurai Sanders
Nov 4, 2003



ImpAtom posted:

I can sort of understand this but it's worth noting that the development necessary for DLC is extremely different from the development necessary for a new game. It isn't an either/or situation. Development teams can work on only so much at once and not everyone on a team is equal.

It's also worth noting that extending the value of a game is different from creating an entirely new game. Someone who wants Game A may not want Game B and DLC allows Game A to continue to receive new content. For someone who has relatively limited tastes in games or doesn't buy a lot of new titles or whatever, getting a $10 DLC to their favorite game is a lot more appealing then a $60 game they don't want to play.
Well, the difference for me is, if it's a dev house that I know makes good stuff, I can be pretty sure that the next game they make will also be good, even if it isn't a direct sequel or a DLC expansion or something. And overall I will enjoy it MORE because it will have a fresh setting and stuff.

the truth
Dec 16, 2007



SotC glitched and wouldn't let me pick up a lizard tail. The controls and camera are even wonkier than I remembered, but the game is undeniably charming and the landscape is enchanting.

EndOfTheWorld
Jul 22, 2004

Not of clay, but smokeless fire made...

the truth posted:

SotC glitched and wouldn't let me pick up a lizard tail. The controls and camera are even wonkier than I remembered, but the game is undeniably charming and the landscape is enchanting.

Yeah, I'm coming around on it, but the first hour or so was surprisingly frustrating. No, get ON the horse, dumbass, quit jumping!

ShoogaSlim
May 22, 2001

the ghost with the post


EndOfTheWorld posted:

Yeah, I'm coming around on it, but the first hour or so was surprisingly frustrating. No, get ON the horse, dumbass, quit jumping!

Best way to get on the horse is to just jump toward it and hit R1.

Also for those not in the know, I don't know how rare of knowledge this is, but if you hold R1 while riding the horse and then push up on the analog stick you will stand on the horse instead of just sit on him. This can also be useful for a cool hidden trick that I won't say anything about Oh gently caress it, it's listed as a trophy anyway.. it's how you ride the hawk.

ShoogaSlim fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 03:07

Arcaeris
Mar 15, 2006
you feed the girls to other girls



Tamagod Sushi posted:

Dark Souls x Yakuza spin off. Prepare to HEAT

Real Yakuza starts now.

Speed
Dec 25, 2010

I wanna sleep...

Anybody else find that in SotC the Colossi are shaking around a lot more (3 on the stomach) and making getting hits in more luck based?

qbert
Oct 23, 2003

It's both thrilling and terrifying.

the truth posted:

SotC glitched and wouldn't let me pick up a lizard tail. The controls and camera are even wonkier than I remembered, but the game is undeniably charming and the landscape is enchanting.

Protip, don't even attempt the all-fruit trophy on the first playthrough. It only counts if you get all of the forbidden fruit in the secret garden as well, which is impossible to do on the first playthrough as the game is based off the EU version.

Behonkiss
Feb 10, 2005


Has anyone here tried out the PS3 version of Child of Eden? I'm planning to get a Kinect at some point for that and Dance Central, but I'm wondering if the Move version is just as good, since I got one of those for the LittleBigPlanet add-on.

It's been so long since I played Shadow of the Colossus, so the third one is already kicking my rear end. I can't figure out how to climb to that weak point on its stomach after jumping from its sword.

qbert
Oct 23, 2003

It's both thrilling and terrifying.

Behonkiss posted:

It's been so long since I played Shadow of the Colossus, so the third one is already kicking my rear end. I can't figure out how to climb to that weak point on its stomach after jumping from its sword.

You mean after you've destroyed the symbol on his head? You climb down its back, drop onto the waist ledge, and run around to its belly.

Behonkiss
Feb 10, 2005


qbert posted:

You mean after you've destroyed the symbol on his head? You climb down its back, drop onto the waist ledge, and run around to its belly.

I didn't know he had one on his head, my sword light was pointing at the belly. I don't even know how to climb from the fur on his arm to his head or torso. GameFAQs time, I guess.

qbert
Oct 23, 2003

It's both thrilling and terrifying.

Behonkiss posted:

I didn't know he had one on his head, my sword light was pointing at the belly. I don't even know how to climb from the fur on his arm to his head or torso. GameFAQs time, I guess.

The trick for that boss is make him smash his sword against the stone circle in the middle of the area. It'll break the ring on his arm and allow you to climb up the sword onto it, and from there to his head.

Chairman Mao
Apr 24, 2004

The Chinese Communist Party is the core of leadership of the whole Chinese people. Without this core, the cause of socialism cannot be victorious.

blackguy32 posted:

The problem is that if nobody ever even mentioned it or even bothered putting it on the disk, would you even know the difference?

Wasn't there a sandbox game released within the last couple of years that had practically nothing but the main story missions and people were confused as to why you would create such a big detailed world and then not give you any way to do anything in it or interact with it in any real way except faffing around purposelessly or doing the main campaign? Then the DLC dropped and everyone was all "oooh, that's where it all went".

I could be misremembering this though.

Incidentally, faffing doesn't set off Firefox's spellchecker. vv

EndOfTheWorld posted:

Yeah, I'm coming around on it, but the first hour or so was surprisingly frustrating. No, get ON the horse, dumbass, quit jumping!

It might be a little frustrating at times but I really like that SotC doesn't hold your hand. Want to get on the horse? You'll figure it out. Don't understand what to do in this fight? You get two hints. TWO. Asking for more would be greedy. Never tells you about fruit or lizards, just lets you go at it and figure it out on your own.

Chairman Mao fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 06:01

qbert
Oct 23, 2003

It's both thrilling and terrifying.

Chairman Mao posted:

Wasn't there a sandbox game released within the last couple of years that had practically nothing but the main story missions and people were confused as to why you would create such a big detailed world and then not give you any way to do anything in it or interact with it in any real way except faffing around purposelessly or doing the main campaign? Then the DLC dropped and everyone was all "oooh, that's where it all went".

I could be misremembering this though.

Incidentally, faffing doesn't set off Firefox's spellchecker. vv

My guess is you're thinking of either L.A. Noire or Mafia 2.

Policenaut
Jul 11, 2008



Mafia 2. I'm pretty sure 2K Games intentionally took content out to sell as DLC and due to the game's sales some of it never materialized.

Chairman Mao
Apr 24, 2004

The Chinese Communist Party is the core of leadership of the whole Chinese people. Without this core, the cause of socialism cannot be victorious.

qbert posted:

My guess is you're thinking of either L.A. Noire or Mafia 2.

Oh man the fact that there's even more than one option is disheartening.

I was thinking of Mafia 2 but I guess this kind of thing is becoming more common than I thought.

GUI
Nov 5, 2005



Mafia 2 is the one you're talking about. The DLC sold poorly enough that after 2 DLC campaigns the publisher scrapped all plans to release the rest.

LA Noire only had a couple of bland DLC 20 minute long cases as pre-order bonuses.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Yechezkel
Oct 5, 2004



GUI posted:

Mafia 2 is the one you're talking about. The DLC sold poorly enough that after 2 DLC campaigns the publisher scrapped all plans to release the rest.
...and then they quietly re-released the game with the DLC that was already released.

Fallout New Vegas also had some locations in the game that had nothing important around them until the add-ons made them relevant.

Yechezkel fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 08:36

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«958 »