Members see less ads - sign up now for free and join the community!
How is it fundamentally misguided or misunderstood? I gave a reason just in my previous post to you about how DLC can be implemented well and how something else can be done poorly. Taking out chunks of a game to sell as first day DLC is not usually a good way to release them.
For example, the From Ashes DLC of Mass Effect 3. The DLC contains a squadmate that EA claimed was not featured in the game to begin with, but then files of the vanilla version found that indeed his scenario was in the game. As in it was On Disc DLC. The DLC was availabe on disc, but you had to purchase the DLC to even play it. Or you had to buy the more expensive version of the game. Making people pay an additional amount of money for something that is already on the disc is an actual misguided understanding of how DLC should work. As I said, DLC should be done to give players a new way to play the game, or have an update that might explain plot points that weren't clear before. Such as the Leviathan DLC from the same game. That's an example of a good DLC. It came out a good time after, gave some new reasons to play the game again to understand the story and new ways to play the game by also offering new weapons. FFXV's pre-order DLC, while a bit excessive, is a good example of DLC that is also intended to give players a different experience depending on where they bough it. The suggestion of having an art gallery DLC doesn't work because he didn't give an idea of how it would be implemented and why it was even something that should be released as DLC other than "as a possibility". I gave a reason for how it could work, by saying it could be like the Crown Pieces from Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix (which, I notice you didn't even seem to read) and that if it was implemented like that, it'd be an example of a good DLC concept. Because it's giving players reasons to look through the world again to find these things.
It seems to me that you only consider my arguments misguided because you seem to think I'm against DLC. But I'm not and I have repeatedly stated that I am not. I said that I wasn't a fan with the idea, nothing more and I explained why. And if you are going to give up before you even hear my full response, then that makes you the straw man, because you are not willing to listen to what I have to say, and instead have done nothing but call me misguided and basically insulted me by saying I am an idiot. When asked if you would explain it, you did not, you only linked something that had nothing to do with your points other than to basically say you think I'm idiot.
For example, the From Ashes DLC of Mass Effect 3. The DLC contains a squadmate that EA claimed was not featured in the game to begin with, but then files of the vanilla version found that indeed his scenario was in the game. As in it was On Disc DLC. The DLC was availabe on disc, but you had to purchase the DLC to even play it. Or you had to buy the more expensive version of the game. Making people pay an additional amount of money for something that is already on the disc is an actual misguided understanding of how DLC should work. As I said, DLC should be done to give players a new way to play the game, or have an update that might explain plot points that weren't clear before. Such as the Leviathan DLC from the same game. That's an example of a good DLC. It came out a good time after, gave some new reasons to play the game again to understand the story and new ways to play the game by also offering new weapons. FFXV's pre-order DLC, while a bit excessive, is a good example of DLC that is also intended to give players a different experience depending on where they bough it. The suggestion of having an art gallery DLC doesn't work because he didn't give an idea of how it would be implemented and why it was even something that should be released as DLC other than "as a possibility". I gave a reason for how it could work, by saying it could be like the Crown Pieces from Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix (which, I notice you didn't even seem to read) and that if it was implemented like that, it'd be an example of a good DLC concept. Because it's giving players reasons to look through the world again to find these things.
It seems to me that you only consider my arguments misguided because you seem to think I'm against DLC. But I'm not and I have repeatedly stated that I am not. I said that I wasn't a fan with the idea, nothing more and I explained why. And if you are going to give up before you even hear my full response, then that makes you the straw man, because you are not willing to listen to what I have to say, and instead have done nothing but call me misguided and basically insulted me by saying I am an idiot. When asked if you would explain it, you did not, you only linked something that had nothing to do with your points other than to basically say you think I'm idiot.
Just drop it, no one cares anymore. I'd rather focus on other stuff rather than this. Let's just let this thread die and save our thoughts for when it finally comes.
And perhaps I was wrong, but I was referring to an interview that I'm having trouble finding where Tabata said that it'd be DLC if they did it, because it wasn't planned to be part of the game.
And perhaps I was wrong, but I was referring to an interview that I'm having trouble finding where Tabata said that it'd be DLC if they did it, because it wasn't planned to be part of the game.
I believe it may have been one of the GC2015 or PAX prime interviews. (at least the one about added blood) since it was one of those 2 conferences Tabata admitted that the death worship and skull symbology had been removed from the game. Since he was talking about ratings, he mentioned that more blood could be a DLC... We havn't heard anything on it since.
Personally, I find it really annoying how the pre order bonuses are scattered among different retailers. It seems almost impossible to get a "complete" version of the game. It's one thing when some cosmetic stuff like character outfits or car skins, etc is retailer exclusive but doing this with unique weapons that actually affect the gameplay seems pretty low. Not to mention that Gamespot exclusive side-scroller game.
Comment about blood: http://www.siliconera.com/2015/02/25/final-fantasy-xv-will-brutal-scenes/
Comment about a gallery mode: http://na.square-enix.com/us/node/6809
This isn't the first time that something like this has been done. They're "bonuses," after all, right? As in, not necessary.
Retailers in Japan get exclusives all the time, and people in Europe this time are lucky since they actually have access to some of the weapons. People in NA got the short end of the stick.
If anything, my only complaint is that Masamune's moveset is the exact same as the Greatsword's.
Comment about a gallery mode: http://na.square-enix.com/us/node/6809
This isn't the first time that something like this has been done. They're "bonuses," after all, right? As in, not necessary.
Retailers in Japan get exclusives all the time, and people in Europe this time are lucky since they actually have access to some of the weapons. People in NA got the short end of the stick.
If anything, my only complaint is that Masamune's moveset is the exact same as the Greatsword's.
So salty Mage Masher will never be mine. ;-;
Last edited:
I am of the mind that they scattered the bonuses across different regions to make us want the ones we don't have. But, they'll be available individually for 5 bucks a pop.
I say this because that's what the evil genius in me would do if it wanted all of your money. Also, because you can bet your butt I'll dish out 5 dollars for those mage masters, lol.
Edit: no! Kain's Lance
I say this because that's what the evil genius in me would do if it wanted all of your money. Also, because you can bet your butt I'll dish out 5 dollars for those mage masters, lol.
Edit: no! Kain's Lance
Likes:
Rin
There is just something that I don't really understand about Versus fans. Sure, you could dislike XV for all the reasons you want, in the end that's totally your opinion. I just find it kinda baffling when their reasoning is that it's not like Versus or that Versus's vision was much better.
To elaborate, I've been a fan of Versus ever since it was announced (mainly because of the dark themes and the action combat) but I've never thought that Versus was more than anything of what we have known so far. I mean, the concept was tragic and dark but to be honest there is nothing that indicates that XV isn't going to be as tragic or dark. Sure, there is less blood now and the death worshiping is scrapped but the main theme remains. Its all about Noctis rising up to be the King along with his comrades.
Regarding Stella, we barely know anything about her yet people are so quick to compare her to Luna and actually say she's a better character than her. My question is, how did you come to this conclusion? We know almost nothing about the two characters and their roles. For all we know, Stella could have been a really mediocre character and her removal would have made more sense to the story, especially since the scale is much different in XV than Versus. Versus was supposed to be a multi-game story, while XV is going to be a one game story. If Stella can't fit this formula, then maybe her removal was a good idea. It just bothers me to see people refuse to give Luna a chance based on mere speculation of how great of a character Stella is. We know so little of Luna, we don't know what her role is going to be as the story events unfold. The little information we have about her is not an indication of how she's going to turn out as a character, same thing with Stella whom we've only seen a couple of trailers of.
To me, XV feels very much as a FF game. Every FF so far have been different in their own regard, and that what makes this franchise unique and lovable. They're so many routes and directions they can take, the sky is literally the limit with FF.
To elaborate, I've been a fan of Versus ever since it was announced (mainly because of the dark themes and the action combat) but I've never thought that Versus was more than anything of what we have known so far. I mean, the concept was tragic and dark but to be honest there is nothing that indicates that XV isn't going to be as tragic or dark. Sure, there is less blood now and the death worshiping is scrapped but the main theme remains. Its all about Noctis rising up to be the King along with his comrades.
Regarding Stella, we barely know anything about her yet people are so quick to compare her to Luna and actually say she's a better character than her. My question is, how did you come to this conclusion? We know almost nothing about the two characters and their roles. For all we know, Stella could have been a really mediocre character and her removal would have made more sense to the story, especially since the scale is much different in XV than Versus. Versus was supposed to be a multi-game story, while XV is going to be a one game story. If Stella can't fit this formula, then maybe her removal was a good idea. It just bothers me to see people refuse to give Luna a chance based on mere speculation of how great of a character Stella is. We know so little of Luna, we don't know what her role is going to be as the story events unfold. The little information we have about her is not an indication of how she's going to turn out as a character, same thing with Stella whom we've only seen a couple of trailers of.
To me, XV feels very much as a FF game. Every FF so far have been different in their own regard, and that what makes this franchise unique and lovable. They're so many routes and directions they can take, the sky is literally the limit with FF.