- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 12,681
- Awards
- 44
- Age
- 25
something like that, maybe with multiplayer and upped stakes like "10,000 heartless" and dustfliers following you fighting xemgantaur.
Changes to games mid-production/post-production
- Thread starter Chuman
- Start date
|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
- Status
something like that, maybe with multiplayer and upped stakes like "10,000 heartless" and dustfliers following you fighting xemgantaur.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,673
As hellish as that sounds it also sounds awesome. o_o
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 12,681
- Awards
- 44
- Age
- 25
shitty endings and poor DLC wasn't started by EA, but they sure made it a trend.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,673
It's more about it in general than company specific. Plus if SE done it once they're not above it again.
No, really. EA is the fucking worst.
What I dislike the most tho are DLCs that allow you to not play the game properly anymore. Like, I think you could buy level ups for Tales of Xillia and shit.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,673
Who's the worst isn't being belated lol. Ea is the worst in several areas.
I hate dlc in general. If the whole doesn't come complete they shouldn't sell it. I however don't trust SE after 13-2.
My point was dlc is a gateway to bad practices. Like all those companies that put stuff ON the disc but make you dlc to unlock. Companies that do that are asses. =__=
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 12,681
- Awards
- 44
- Age
- 25
i agree wholeheartedly but i really hope that square won't stoop that low for KH3.
I don't mind DLC. I've generally had good experiences with it (I think Mass Effect 3 was the first time I ever dealt with DLC and I enjoyed it all). Also after learning a lot more about the realities of DLC and how it's developed, I am far more sympathetic and alright with it. So long as the main game feels like a complete story on its own, then I'm alright. I'm also generally okay with the more microtransaction-y kind of DLC practices (like the aforementioned buying levels/experience thing). If I don't think it is worth the money or isn't something I would want I just don't buy it. But the fact that it's in the game generally means it's because it's something the developers/publishers have discovered it IS something people are willing and wanting to pay for. Otherwise they wouldn't bother to incorporate it. So yeah. I'm pretty much alright with it. If I don't think the content is worth the cost then I simply don't buy it.
I've only had good experiences with EA myself.
Personally I don't think DLC is that subjective. I mean, you know, it's subjective in the sort of, not all content is going to be considered good for every player, or worth the money, etc. But DLC itself, like, as a practice, I don't think is as subjective. I mean, developers deserve to be paid for their work and DLCs' budget and development is separate from the main game's budget and development. I think a lot of people have misconceptions about how DLC is made and that's part of what makes them think it's so bad, when that might not really reflect the reality of it.
Personally I don't think DLC is that subjective. I mean, you know, it's subjective in the sort of, not all content is going to be considered good for every player, or worth the money, etc. But DLC itself, like, as a practice, I don't think is as subjective. I mean, developers deserve to be paid for their work and DLCs' budget and development is separate from the main game's budget and development. I think a lot of people have misconceptions about how DLC is made and that's part of what makes them think it's so bad, when that might not really reflect the reality of it.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,673
But thinking it's not subjective is your subjected view of it. lol
I don't like it solely for the poor practices some use it for. It can be done good but overall I find it an easy gateway for the more money hungry. (not counting the more positive uses like extending a games life)
I don't like it solely for the poor practices some use it for. It can be done good but overall I find it an easy gateway for the more money hungry. (not counting the more positive uses like extending a games life)
I mean the obvious solution to me seems to be looking at DLC on a case by case basis and deciding whether or not it's something you personally would want or think is worth the money. Sure there are some more iffy uses of it, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad or that it would be bad for every player. Some people for example, really like cosmetic junk. Some people like easy fatalities. Do these microtransactions-like uses make the DLC practice inherently bad, or is it more of a case of some developers offering options that not every player will like or think it's worth it? I don't know. I just see such an overwhelming trend in gaming circles to vilify DLC and to me it just seems like there could be a more nuanced approach instead of near-blanket condemnation and declaring companies greedy just because they want their developers to be paid for their work and for their products to make back their budgets so they can make more games.
To give this a KH focus, I for one, wouldn't really pay for additional Disney worlds for example. I don't think the games' implementation of the worlds are strong enough for me to feel willing to pay extra for extra worlds. But others might disagree and think, based on the price, that it is worth it.
To give this a KH focus, I for one, wouldn't really pay for additional Disney worlds for example. I don't think the games' implementation of the worlds are strong enough for me to feel willing to pay extra for extra worlds. But others might disagree and think, based on the price, that it is worth it.
Except that's just not how DLC is developed. It's developed separately, with its own budget. Not having DLC doesn't mean everything will be on disc, it just means cut and extra content will never see the light of day.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,673
That doesn't make this discussion less subjective man.
This is just one of those gaming things many will diverge on. Too me no matter how it's developed doesn't excuse some of the lesser practices and I'd rather do without. (and usually do)
I don't deny some Dlc was done right but I only contend to 'some'. I'm just with chuman on the dlc debate.
I thought of another thing that was changed during development. According to Nomura, Xion was originally going to want to destroy Roxas and become the "real one" so to speak, similar to Repliku, but staff felt that Xion should stay innocent and pure so Nomura changed it so that Xion simply tricked Roxas into destroying her.
There's also some stuff to suggest that, at least initially, Axel and Roxas would have had an ambivalent relationship with Xion.
This screenshot, for example, is from the first time that Axel and Roxas really interacted with her:
This screenshot, for example, is from the first time that Axel and Roxas really interacted with her:
- Status