| Zekkyou said: Given the topic, i think it's pretty obvious that i was talking relative to the other games brought up. I was replying to the claim that SFV is more like Mario Tennis than Splatoon, not which of the three i consider the worst. But even ignoring that "Oh look it's in the title" factor, yes, outside of the online issues (which as with Splatoon's content cycling, i see as a separate, if also shitty issue), to me the end result of 'I'm getting less content at launch than i should be' is by far the most significant factor. Personally, i think almost any situation where the launch product isn't the complete version of a game is unacceptable. I don't care if it's Nintendo time-locking, or SFV simply not being finished. Both are shitty, and both will inevitably be used as the justification for even shittier behavior. |
That's reasonable, yeah. I thought the same, until I realised that the Splatoon formula worked for me, so I wouldn't mind if SFV in the end follows the same path as Splatoon. Why? It kept me going back in the game months after I first played it to keep track of the new content, while I normally play the game for a month and then just leave it. Obviously, I acknowledge that it works for me, but I completely understand the opposition to this way of releasing content. SFV suffers for a lackluster online experience and I think less content on the release date. Story mode or a competent single player mode would be great. The problem with this way of releasing content is that people might just not risk the money for a incomplete game. And that's totally understandable.
