Jump to content

Gregzilla

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    16,925
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Gregzilla last won the day on August 21 2016

Gregzilla had the most liked content!

About Gregzilla

  • Rank
    A smelly human.

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Games, cartoons, etc.
  • Gender
    Male
  • Country
    United States
  • Location
    THE LAND OF DARKNESS.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5X_EpEmrH_CAIfG1E9eSgQ

Recent Profile Visitors

238,073 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by Gregzilla

  1. I'm totally fine with Zelda getting DLC later on, but I will not be pleased if it turns out the additional content was supposed to be in the base game and they just couldn't finish it in time.  If the base game is fully finished and this DLC is just extra then I'm down.

    1. KHCast

      KHCast

      If it isn't pointless guff that costs more than it should be or it's stuff that should be in the main game, that's fine.  Basically if it's made post game and reasonably priced according to the content 

    2. Adamabba

      Adamabba

      I just wish they would have announced it after the game came out

    3. KHCast

      KHCast

      *it's not stuff

    4. JezMM

      JezMM

      I think they already confirmed this DLC was decided upon after the game went gold.

      Like, even if it is based off initially scrapped ideas from the main game, had they put it in the main game, we wouldn't be playing it on March 3rd.

    5. KHCast

      KHCast

      I'd rather stuff supposed to be in the main game was in the main game instead of it being used to to justify why we should be happy since we're getting a game earlier than they planned now. If it indeed is cut content. Like I wouldn't have a problem waiting a few months for the FULL package 

    6. Indigo Rush

      Indigo Rush

      tbqh i dont know if i could have handled another delay

    7. Gregzilla

      Gregzilla

      Yeah, if it was cut and intended to be there in there in the first place then I would have rather had a delay.

      But if what Jez said is the case then it's fine.  If it's purely extra and was made to add onto the game rather than fill in missing pieces, I don't see a problem.

    8. JezMM

      JezMM

      Thing is though, what's the cut off point?  Developers will be getting new ideas all the time through development, the suggested scenario here is that these ideas emerged after the developers said "okay let's set these concepts in stone and get to creating/developing/finishing them".  Alternatively, they came up with concepts that just didn't comfortably fit into the overall experience they had laid out for the game, but they were "too good" to just be relegated to optional side content, so instead the developers, rather than shelving those concepts for the next game as they would've done in Zeldas past, simply shelved them and said "let's work on that once we've finished the rest of it and make it DLC" - more people are likely to play it than a side quest since it will be a big marketed thing, and it means these concepts get to thrive in the game they were envisioned for in their own way.

      We'll never know for sure, they could just as well be crooks lying through the teeth and have all the DLC in testing now or even ready to go 100%, but these are two potential scenarios for how DLC such as this could come about with them being honest about their reasons for making it DLC.

      Of course one could argue neither "good" scenario would prevent them from just adding it to the game as free updates, but that falls more under the conundrum of what monetary value any amount of game content has.

    9. KHCast

      KHCast

      The side quest method or maybe post game/free update methods I'd still see as more logical alternatives vs charging for content you already intended to be put in at some point. Lots of people are completionists, especially with Zelda, and many side quests in games actually have large story arcs of their own. Before DLC that was common

      That ones more a personal grip vs moral corruption. Now if it's the Capcom or Ubisoft method, then that's shit

    10. JezMM

      JezMM

      I guess for me the issue of charging for additional content will come down to - once I've had my fill of the base game's content as they release it - be that all of it or not - will I be able to say "I think I got my money's worth"?  I'd feel a bit awkward if my answer was yes initially then I changed it once I learned there had been more planned.

      Aunoma confirmed that the much sought after scrapped dungeons from Wind Waker wouldn't be included in HD because they got recycled into Twilight Princess - should they have sold TP for less to compensate for the "missing" content from WW, a game we paid full price for?  I felt I got my money's worth on both games, so much so I was happy to pay a second time on Wii U.

      I compare this DLC situation to that.

      And yes, lots of people do play side content in games, but maddening as it is to think about, most people don't.  Tons of people don't even finish the games they buy.  Just look at the global achievements statistics for ANY (reasonably popular) game on Steam.  For example, in Sonic Generations, only 53% of players even played as far as beating Sky Sanctuary.  It's tragic, but the fact is developers do have to think about what sort of content they make for the front-facing, most accessible part of the game.  And DLC that says "here it is, here's the new content, play it now!" is more accessible than side quests that have to be discovered at the player's own volition.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.