| Vodacixi said: Ok first, I want to tell you something: it's really confusing that you don't answer any of my arguments or questions and you just throw more questions at me. It's quite difficult to have a conversation like this. I asked you If you thought the content added in Emerald was 2 hours long, because you explicitly said something along those lines and it's a plain lie. You didn't answer. I asked you if you thought that the DLC will fix the technical errors and flaws Sword and Shield have just as Emerald and Platinum fixed/improved what could be better from R/S and D/P, because it's been two months since the games launched and they are still at version 1.0 and in the Direct they didn't mention any measures on those fronts. You didn't answer. I would like you to adress these questions, please. My point is... my point, I guess. I'm not trying to present you an objective truth. I told you my opinion. You are trying to debunk it. I think I'm right. You think I'm not. Maybe if you say something new and answer my arguments with something that very clearly beats them, I will change my opinion. But that hasn't happend yet. The changes on Emerald were very numerous and with different variations of importance. I think giving each Pokémon an animation, creating the Battle Frontier and all the changes made to the main adventure from both story and gameplay perspectives are not "tweaks". And those are just the major changes. Most of the list I gave you might be "minor" changes, but together they create something far bigger. I think that's more than what we will get with the Expansion Pack. Basically because the expansion pack is essentially a post game and Emerald is more than just a new post game. I rather play a new better game with more content that continue the same game for another X hours (don't worry, this time I won't put an actual number. I see you don't like that...). Sword and Shield will not change their "core game", if that makes any sense. If you decide to start a new save file after the DLC, you'll play the exact same game you played before with the exact same flaws, errors and absences it had before. Only that now you have a post game. For everyone who found Sword and Shield lacking in many aspects (and there is a lot of people like that), the DLC won't do them any good. It will give them more of something flawed. To me, that's enough... opinion based evidence? I don't know how to call it at this point in order to not trigger you. Whathever: it's enough for me to believe the Expansion Pack will, in no way or form be close to a third version in terms of content, improvements and changes. Even if it costs half the price, I think you are still getting less than half of what you could potentially get. As for the development time... it's not relevant to my point. You say we're getting more or less the same in less time. I'm saying you we are getting less and worse content. In less time. Also I repeat: we're getting a post game. In a third version, we get that and a (very) improved base game. No matter how much time they spend on the DLC: the base game will remain the same. That's something that wouldn't happen with a third version. It's late here in Spain. Have a good night. |
It must be late there because you're not reading my post at all I asked you two specific questions in my initial response to your first reply one in how much actual game time would be added if the tweaks you cited were dlc instead and the second was where you got the 2 hours figure from. After that I didn't ask you a question I just addressed the overall point even the post you quoted has no question in it so what are these more questions you're referring to exactly outside of this one I ask now?
This is what makes little sense in your view here you're going on about Sw/Sh being the same game at its core yet that's exactly what everyone is pointing out about the third version especially the likes of Emerald so it just comes across as double standards as Emerald is still the same base game even if you choose to not see it that way. The second paragraph highlights my point you say it'll give them more of something flawed making an assumption no issue people may have had is addressed ironically it comes in a part when you're arguing about lack of content that the DLC just existing is addressing this is why your opinion as you put it is wtf as the double standards in ignoring the same basic issue in third versions combined with the assumption of everything in the DLC like thinking you're getting less than half people could get or the 2 hours comment I inquired about.
Development time is relevant because for the content in the third version having more time you'd think they should have more than DLC that will be fully out 11 months later instead they're looking very comparable with one being cheaper. As for your question it's possible they can sort out issues they don't need to mention optimizations to the engine in a direct as that's what developers are normally doing anyway the fact you're expecting that to be announced in a direct is bizarre to begin with.
