Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
"I'm not asking for free content, I'm merely criticizing the free content we got for not being enough." is...a thing.
Yeah, sorry for not liking part of a game I'm playing being turned into ad for something I'm not interested in buying. Like, every time I host a fest I'm very consciously reminded that content is blocked off because I don't own a particular DLC. I would posit that is bad game design. Paradox can do free content well, court positions from Royal Court being a good example. You get some court positions even if you don't own the DLC but there also isn't a constant reminder that you are missing out on content. That is my problem and that problem is more prevalent with Paradox that it should be."I'm not asking for free content, I'm merely criticizing the free content we got for not being enough." is...a thing.
Just because a game ships complete doesn't mean it stays "complete." Like, that's the whole reason why Paradox started adding free content to the base game because of the constant complaints of "must have" DLC that people felt like they had to buy. But if a game adds a bunch of free mechanics to the game that feel half-baked because you don't have the DLC, I think its entirely reasonable to argue that you still don't have a "complete" game. The larger point is whether or not you "need" DLC to have a complete experience with a game, and poorly added free content still make it feel like you need the DLC.It's still in no way, form or shape Paradox shipping an incomplete game.
Which is what the conversation was about, before you tried to make it about freebies added in patches instead.
There definitely is for EU4. Just one example, Morocco has a mission in their mission tree to gain 200 ducats from raiding. But you can't raid unless you have a certain DLC.but there also isn't a constant reminder
I certainly think that having an overt reminder in the game that you don't own a DLC or expansion is intentional. It wears you down until you give in and buy it.I think this form of marketting gets a boost by the horizontal market influence of things like MMO's, MPFPS's, and such, where you are actually blocked from entering new content zones and activities and keeping up with your friends if you don't buy the expansions and DLC's.
That's just plain dishonest. You accuse him of whining for freebies, but completely obscure the fact that the designer PLANNED a complete game, then released 25% of said game in the original version then PLANNED to sell the remaining 75% as DLCsYou're free to dislike it and to suggest ways the free part could be better, It's still in no way, form or shape Paradox shipping an incomplete game.
Which is what the conversation was about, before you tried to make it about freebies added in patches instead.
Once again, this is dishonest...The idea that there's enough design time to put all, or even of a majority, of the devs's ideas (let alone the fans' ideas) in the base game without massively increasing design time and therefore game price is just misinformed. Trying to fit in all of a designer's idea in a game vefore releaese is how you end up with Vaporware.
This was true back in the old days, when there was still no time to fit every feature (we just never got most of them), and it's true today when there still isn't time and we get them as DLC.
"A game is not complete if the devs don't put all their ideas in" is sheer, brutal nonsense.
It turns out Vanilla is more playable. from modder's perspectiveIndeed. The vanilla version has always included the important core mechanics. This meme is cynical and hyperbolic in this context.
I have to agree with Evie here, it's wild to me to call the Paradox games we've moved onto discussing 'very thin' on release. For example, CK3 - it launched with less content than CK2 had at the end of its development cycle, so someone who was used to that version of CK2 might make it feel very thin to them. But in reality, CK2 at-launch didn't allow you to play Muslim regions of the world, pagan regions of the world, tribal regions of the world, and a lot more that was included in CK3 from the start. If you simply bought CK2 on release, played it without any expansions for its lifecycle, and then bought CK3, you undoubtedly would feel like CK3 was a more fleshed-out, detailed game than CK2.Once again, this is dishonest...
No one is saying DLCs are evil and should never exist. Proof is almost everyone here defends Firaxis model of 2 or 3 DLCs.
The OP is making fun of those who DESIGNS their game in a way to sell 10/20 DLCs, making the original offering feel very thin....
Have you ever started a Game in Industrial Era or later? it's still very fun once the AI has settled some Cities. The Issue isn't about Time, but Pacing and Balance. Cutting down the amount of Playtime and/or "Years" to play wouldn't solve anything. The best example why that wouldn't work is Old World, which only focuses on 1 Era and it doesn't even offer good and well paced gameplay for the whole of that. The Game is only fun for ~150-200 Turns at most (which is on purpose AFAICT), and the Late Game in OW also suffers from the same issues as in Civ6, or even worse, bc the Late Game in Civ6 still offers way more stuff/content to interact with.I've thought for a while now that Civ 7 base game should end at about 1700 and the modern age should be released as a full game expansion
I've tried a couple. It is fun spending getting more time on modern unit and buildings. I'm looking at separating Civ 7 in two parts so that the game play changes a lot more than it does in Civ6 rather than just more content. The gameplay should become more about connecting your cities with railroad (single or double track?) and sewer systems and less about placing improvements. And I like the early part of the game and having to decide when and where to place improvements.Have you ever started a Game in Industrial Era or later? it's still very fun once the AI has settled some Cities. The Issue isn't about Time, but Pacing and Balance. Cutting down the amount of Playtime and/or "Years" to play wouldn't solve anything.
Withholding America to a DLC/expansion?I've thought for a while now that Civ 7 base game should end at about 1700 and the modern age should be released as a full game expansion. I'd rather the time be spent on other features then a underdeveloped end game that gets a few minor updates later on. But I'm seeing why that will probably not happen as there will be a lot of people feeling "ripped off" for not the modern game.
I've tried to come up with a way to include America in the base game in my scenario and the closest I've come up with is Johnny Appleseed and James Oglethorpe.Withholding America to a DLC/expansion?
At least that would be in line with the OP.