One of my favorite AGDQ runs. The game itself isn't that interesting a speedgame, but everything goes so wrong that it's satisfying when Keiz wins for a change.
The crowd was on fire here.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Video Game Club [Current Topic: Gacha & Lootboxes | Nominations Open!]
- Thread starter Plague von Karma
- Start date
- Status
One of my favorite AGDQ runs. The game itself isn't that interesting a speedgame, but everything goes so wrong that it's satisfying when Keiz wins for a change.
The crowd was on fire here.
Plague von Karma
Banned deucer.
As the title states, new topic nominations are open! For now, I'll nominate lootboxes.
I cleared Persona 5 Strikers today, a fairly interesting take on the "Musou" type games. I went in a bit shaky, as I wasn't sure whether the genres would synergize well. I was very pleasantly surprised. The story is alright, though it took a bit longer to kick into gear than I would have liked. I wasn't really invested in the story until around mid-game. It's definitely a "for the fans" game with how it's structured, which makes the Switch release pretty sus if you ask me. I'd suggest getting the PC version since it has sound mixing options; the default is absolutely awful and it soured my PS4 experience a good deal.
I also took the time to clean up my Backloggery page. My consoles weren't very well-arranged at all, no clue why the Acorn Electron of all things was near the top when I haven't touched it in months. Now it's a lot tidier and arranged by company and release order...sometimes.
Back to my Pokemon Silver playthrough!
I cleared Persona 5 Strikers today, a fairly interesting take on the "Musou" type games. I went in a bit shaky, as I wasn't sure whether the genres would synergize well. I was very pleasantly surprised. The story is alright, though it took a bit longer to kick into gear than I would have liked. I wasn't really invested in the story until around mid-game. It's definitely a "for the fans" game with how it's structured, which makes the Switch release pretty sus if you ask me. I'd suggest getting the PC version since it has sound mixing options; the default is absolutely awful and it soured my PS4 experience a good deal.
I also took the time to clean up my Backloggery page. My consoles weren't very well-arranged at all, no clue why the Acorn Electron of all things was near the top when I haven't touched it in months. Now it's a lot tidier and arranged by company and release order...sometimes.
Back to my Pokemon Silver playthrough!
Last edited:
I'm gonna do a more expanded version of what Bandkrook nommed and do Challenge Runs: any playthrough of a video game with self-imposed restrictions. I've done Pokemon Sun Monowater, have 2 nuzlockes going, and an on-hold FFXIII challenge run. If I can be bothered to learn how to edit ROMs, I'm gonna do a Pokemon Yellow monobug with Pikachu replaced with a Weedle.
Not much else in my gaming life. I'm still stuck on O&S in Dark Souls, and I've started a Fire Emblem 1 ironman (no reset) run that's at Chapter 4. I also just started a playthrough of Persona 1 PSP. Finally, I'm planning on going through Ultra Moon again for the ingame tier list thread. Gonna put my Backloggery in my sig now.
Not much else in my gaming life. I'm still stuck on O&S in Dark Souls, and I've started a Fire Emblem 1 ironman (no reset) run that's at Chapter 4. I also just started a playthrough of Persona 1 PSP. Finally, I'm planning on going through Ultra Moon again for the ingame tier list thread. Gonna put my Backloggery in my sig now.
I've done a few of that as well. Like beating Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine without rotating Puyos, on Hardest and without Continues, or beating every vanilla Quake level on Nightmare with the default loadout (Axe, Shotgun, 25 Shells, 100 Health).
I mean, it's not like P5 has had a PC release either...
Plague von Karma
Banned deucer.
Alllmost forgot...voting is up!
I'll vote DLC content, it's a very interesting topic as someone from the days where it was reviled.
I'll vote DLC content, it's a very interesting topic as someone from the days where it was reviled.
I will pick DLC
Deleted User 465389
Banned deucer.
I’ll vote for dlc content.
Plague von Karma
Banned deucer.
Well, that was decisive. The new topic is DLC!
Plague von Karma
Banned deucer.
So I'm not really sure what made DLC such an accepted medium in the game industry. Back in the day, people despised it on the basis of "ship out a finished game". Perhaps it was acceptance by exposure.
Some kinds of DLC, I can vibe with: skins, crossovers, etc. But then there's games that are essentially hollow husks that demand you pay an extra £50 on top of what you spent to get the game, just for a full experience. This magnifies with games that essentially pack entire sequels into DLC which just kinda sucks tbh? It adds up like WoW expansions. Day 1 DLC is a corrupt as fuck practice as well and whenever I see someone getting hyped I just feel my skin crawl. Maybe I'm just old, but I swear this is what has made the game industry into the corrupt sector it is today.
Some kinds of DLC, I can vibe with: skins, crossovers, etc. But then there's games that are essentially hollow husks that demand you pay an extra £50 on top of what you spent to get the game, just for a full experience. This magnifies with games that essentially pack entire sequels into DLC which just kinda sucks tbh? It adds up like WoW expansions. Day 1 DLC is a corrupt as fuck practice as well and whenever I see someone getting hyped I just feel my skin crawl. Maybe I'm just old, but I swear this is what has made the game industry into the corrupt sector it is today.
I can see where some people may dislike DLC. In one way people would think the game could have been rushed and the developers did not have enough time / help to complete, etc. Whereas others could feel the DLC can add more action to it or help develop the story that the main content lacked or had troubles doing, etc. There could be various reasons why DLC could be somewhat more accepted now and why it has started to become integrated into games more often than it had in the past.
One particularly fascinating thing I've realized about DLC is that it's now associated with devs shipping a game and then choosing to fix it later with a Day 1 Patch. But I remember back in like the early 2010s, it was quite the opposite, the trend instead was the Day 1 DLC and on-disc DLC. Companies were just straight-up paywalling already finished parts of the game for no apparent reason other than to make money (and sometimes not making it available for purchase for a good while after release). I remember Capcom doing it a lot, namely for Street Fighter X Tekken and Mega Man 10.
One nice thing about DLC or the general existence of it is that patching is now much more feasible than it was before. Version updates were a thing was early as the '80s, usually for bugfixes (i.e. Mega Man X and Super Mario World had a bunch), though some particularly late print runs or regional localizations had major changes/improvements (Metroid Fusion, Astro Boy Omega Factor, Drawn to Life, and Epic Mickey come to mind), but since all game media was physical, the only way you could really get a patched copy was by getting a version of the game from a later print run or importing from a different region, and either way it causes desync issues if multiplayer requires multiple versions of the game. Nowadays, you don't have to worry about any of that thanks to the internet giving us downloadable content updates and bug fixes. Even in the 2000s and early 2010s, Nintendo often had really weird ways of patching games (like the many many MANY methods of fixing the Berry Glitch in Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire, and the Wii Channel to fix a soft-locking bug in Skyward Sword) or would just not bother fixing the bug at all (i.e. the soft-lock in Metroid Other M, or the Sky Drop glitch in BW), and it kinda reflects how behind the curve they've always been when it comes to online gaming. It's a shame that companies have been abusing patches as a way to ship unfinished games, but it's still very much appreciated for those that do use it properly.
One nice thing about DLC or the general existence of it is that patching is now much more feasible than it was before. Version updates were a thing was early as the '80s, usually for bugfixes (i.e. Mega Man X and Super Mario World had a bunch), though some particularly late print runs or regional localizations had major changes/improvements (Metroid Fusion, Astro Boy Omega Factor, Drawn to Life, and Epic Mickey come to mind), but since all game media was physical, the only way you could really get a patched copy was by getting a version of the game from a later print run or importing from a different region, and either way it causes desync issues if multiplayer requires multiple versions of the game. Nowadays, you don't have to worry about any of that thanks to the internet giving us downloadable content updates and bug fixes. Even in the 2000s and early 2010s, Nintendo often had really weird ways of patching games (like the many many MANY methods of fixing the Berry Glitch in Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire, and the Wii Channel to fix a soft-locking bug in Skyward Sword) or would just not bother fixing the bug at all (i.e. the soft-lock in Metroid Other M, or the Sky Drop glitch in BW), and it kinda reflects how behind the curve they've always been when it comes to online gaming. It's a shame that companies have been abusing patches as a way to ship unfinished games, but it's still very much appreciated for those that do use it properly.
So yeah, DLC has always been a bit controversial.
The best case is one where an already good game gets DLC that just gives you more of what you were looking for in the first place. Open world games like Horizon Zero Dawn can do this bu just adding another area you can explore with new enemies. Bloodborne is another example of a DLC area in an action game that just serves to have a few really cool bosses and areas that fans of the game can tackle without the main game feeling lacking without it. And I think the existence of games like this is enough to keep the idea of DLC as a format around.
Other DLC adds new games or game modes which feel really distinct from the original game but nevertheless still a kind of "for the fans" product where an understanding of the original is required to buy it. Think Xenoblade 2 Torna or Mega Man 9 and 10 with Protoman or Bass. I'd argue even Fire Emblem Fates counts for this, quirks of selling either version first non withstanding (and anyway Rev exists). I don't really feel like I'm being fleeced in these cases cause it's really less of a case of a product being shipped unfinished and more multiple products being made where I have the option to buy less. It's worth noting, though, that Shovel Knight had the great idea of releasing all its extra game modes for free so the $20 price point of the original game could be justified over ~7 years and people could keep having a reason to play and buy it. Which I think was a pretty justifiable line of logic.
Then there's the DLC which tries to add to a game that was lacking in the first place. And my problem with this is the structure of the DLC itself, that all the changes it makes have to be separate from the main game experience. They can add a paid battle frontier island to a pokemon game, but the story and region adjustments that normally come with a third version are necessarily absent in DLC. Probably the biggest offender of this in my opinion is Kingdom Hearts 3. They took great pains to deliver on great boss fights for the Data Organization and provide a lot of post game weapons and abilities that fixed the combat for that area of the game, but it didn't change the fact that the main game is just a comparative slog with all the same issues from before. 2fm by comparison made lots of adjustments that affect things all the way through.
And finally, you get DLC that feels like an obligation or a cash in because a game is just big enough or reputable enough to support it even if it doesn't really need it or could have been included in the main game (on a d1 DLC release for example). I feel like we get less of that now than we used to but I'll confess to maybe not playing the games where it's happening these days.
So I guess in conclusion a tactful application of DLC can be a way to make a good game better that people didn't normally do years ago but there are a lot of ways it can go wrong and like with anything else you have to trust that the developers know what they're doing.
The best case is one where an already good game gets DLC that just gives you more of what you were looking for in the first place. Open world games like Horizon Zero Dawn can do this bu just adding another area you can explore with new enemies. Bloodborne is another example of a DLC area in an action game that just serves to have a few really cool bosses and areas that fans of the game can tackle without the main game feeling lacking without it. And I think the existence of games like this is enough to keep the idea of DLC as a format around.
Other DLC adds new games or game modes which feel really distinct from the original game but nevertheless still a kind of "for the fans" product where an understanding of the original is required to buy it. Think Xenoblade 2 Torna or Mega Man 9 and 10 with Protoman or Bass. I'd argue even Fire Emblem Fates counts for this, quirks of selling either version first non withstanding (and anyway Rev exists). I don't really feel like I'm being fleeced in these cases cause it's really less of a case of a product being shipped unfinished and more multiple products being made where I have the option to buy less. It's worth noting, though, that Shovel Knight had the great idea of releasing all its extra game modes for free so the $20 price point of the original game could be justified over ~7 years and people could keep having a reason to play and buy it. Which I think was a pretty justifiable line of logic.
Then there's the DLC which tries to add to a game that was lacking in the first place. And my problem with this is the structure of the DLC itself, that all the changes it makes have to be separate from the main game experience. They can add a paid battle frontier island to a pokemon game, but the story and region adjustments that normally come with a third version are necessarily absent in DLC. Probably the biggest offender of this in my opinion is Kingdom Hearts 3. They took great pains to deliver on great boss fights for the Data Organization and provide a lot of post game weapons and abilities that fixed the combat for that area of the game, but it didn't change the fact that the main game is just a comparative slog with all the same issues from before. 2fm by comparison made lots of adjustments that affect things all the way through.
And finally, you get DLC that feels like an obligation or a cash in because a game is just big enough or reputable enough to support it even if it doesn't really need it or could have been included in the main game (on a d1 DLC release for example). I feel like we get less of that now than we used to but I'll confess to maybe not playing the games where it's happening these days.
So I guess in conclusion a tactful application of DLC can be a way to make a good game better that people didn't normally do years ago but there are a lot of ways it can go wrong and like with anything else you have to trust that the developers know what they're doing.
Last edited:
I think DLC is a fine concept. You can't really do everything when creating a game, and sometimes making some type of content just isn't really worth the expenses (either because it's too niche, or because there are bigger things to focus on). Of course, the implementation of DLC has been very shaky, but tbh trying to compare how good a feature is with the way big companies use it isn't worth it, they'll corrupt any feature if it means more money and less effort.
I find that a few things that DLCs were used for (bringing bug fixes or fixing big holes in either lore and/or gameplay), while not completely taken over, have seen "update patches" as another option used by developers. You know the scenario: a buggy/incomplete game that promises to fix its issues in future patches. How much time it takes and how well it'll be fixed, that's all in the roll of the dice (lmao @ ACNH).
I find that a few things that DLCs were used for (bringing bug fixes or fixing big holes in either lore and/or gameplay), while not completely taken over, have seen "update patches" as another option used by developers. You know the scenario: a buggy/incomplete game that promises to fix its issues in future patches. How much time it takes and how well it'll be fixed, that's all in the roll of the dice (lmao @ ACNH).
When it comes to Day 1 DLC/patches, I think it comes across worse than it really is. A developer always has the power to push back their release date if their game is truly unfinished, though it looks bad if you do it too much, but even so a stable version needs to be in the hands of physical retailers and digital platforms weeks before the actual release date of a game. It's during that time that additional content and/or late bugfixes can be developed and may or may not be ready to go on Day 1 release.
Plague von Karma
Banned deucer.
New topic nominations are now up!
this can be improved. you (somehow) whiffed on 0:44
- Status