MGR: Revengeance DLC to Add a New Playable Character

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
Flailing Escapist said:
Why THE FUCK are we planning and casually talking about planned DLC before the game is even released. YES, this will always ALWAYS bug the fuck out of me. No, there is no way in fuck that this will ever, EVER be a good idea. This is fucking wrong, people. Why the goddamn hell are we putting up with it?!

Stop it!!!

Give me one (good) reason why this won't be included in the actual game. Why do we have to pay more for this? Why are devs HATE us? WHY?!!

[sub]Granted the DLC could be completely free. Not sure why we're calling it DLC if that's the case (or talking about it already) but it might (just maybe) not be fucking us.
/rant[/sub]
Well, in any creative project, ideas pop up all the time, even at the end of said project, when it's too late to feasibly implement it. Feature creep, the phenomenon where multiple aspects keep getting put into a game throughout development, has put many a game in development hell. DLC, when used properly, allows people to release the game, and work on things that they thought of, but it was too late in the development process to properly implement it.

Judging on wording, it would seem like that's what's happened here. After all, we haven't heard of an online pass for it yet, but it is hard to tell whether this is what's happened, or they've simply "planned" to have DLC.
 

Cheeseman Muncher

New member
Apr 7, 2009
187
0
0
Andy of Comix Inc said:
Or Bayonetta. Drop Bayonetta in. COME ON PLATINUM GAMES, IF YOU CAN'T MAKE A SEQUEL YOU CAN AT LEAST SPRINKLE CONFETTI OVER AN UNRELATED GAME
God, yes.

Seriously though, devs should stop announcing DLC at this point in development. The game doesn't even have a confirmed release yet, all this does is make people hold off for the (almost certain) "game of the year" edition.

I have no problems with DLC (aside from day one/on the disc stuff) but there's becoming far too much of a reliance on it. The rise of the "complete" edition is at least partly responsible for the short tail on game sales. If you're going to release an arseload of DLC then package it all up into one edition, why should I spend 40 quid for it new plus 15 quid of DLC on top of that when I can get a complete edition for 25 quid a few months down the line? (Admittedly I have done so in some cases, Arkham City as one example but it was an excellent game and a ludicrious amount of fun so I have no problem chucking extra money at Rocksteady.)
 

ChaosStep

New member
Dec 28, 2007
70
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
"Playable Character"? I call shenanigans. That would mean they'd have to actually let us play a Metal Gear game to begin with.
You'll be pleased to hear that MGR will be the first playable Metal Gear game in nearly 10 years.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
DustyDrB said:
Vamp? Noooo...that...
That's Lamp!
[color=f5f5f5]And cue the Anchorman jokes[/color]

This story is going to be a shoddy mess, even for Metal Gear standards. But I'll count this as one of those occasions where I won't care. Platinum makes some seriously fun games.
IT DOESNT MATTER

This game is obviously "fuck story! this is a violence orgy! BLOOD MUTHAFUCKA!"
it's also the new Devil May Cry game. Because the other doesnt exist.
But yes, Vamp, Gray Fox, and maybe a castlevania douche would be great choices.

FUCK YOUR CAPTCHA, ESCAPIST!
The question is "which board game is associated with toyota prius c?"
Fuck this shit. Between mod abuse and this nonsense, I don't like being on this site.
of course, me not posting won't accomplish anything, but I dont care. Be back in a month guys
 

getoffmycloud

New member
Jun 13, 2011
440
0
0
Flailing Escapist said:
Why THE FUCK are we planning and casually talking about planned DLC before the game is even released. YES, this will always ALWAYS bug the fuck out of me. No, there is no way in fuck that this will ever, EVER be a good idea. This is fucking wrong, people. Why the goddamn hell are we putting up with it?!

Stop it!!!

Give me one (good) reason why this won't be included in the actual game. Why do we have to pay more for this? Why are devs HATE us? WHY?!!

[sub]Granted the DLC could be completely free. Not sure why we're calling it DLC if that's the case (or talking about it already) but it might (just maybe) not be fucking us.
/rant[/sub]
Its called DLC because it is downloadable content price doesn't play a part in that
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
No. No, I don't care who it is but I won't be playing as that person or those people. You've lost my new sale. The game doesn't even have a release date and they're talking about the post-launch DLC? Obviously if they have time to make and talk about DLC like this (ie: extra playable characters) then they have ample time to put it into the actual game. Back in the day (last gen) they actually did if any of you still remember. Beat the game, beat level X, beat level X on Super-Hardcore, and you get to play as someone different or, at the very least, someone who looks different. I do not approve of this and was really excited for Revenegence but now it looks like I'll be grabbing this one used.
 

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
8-Bit_Jack said:
IT DOESNT MATTER

This game is obviously "fuck story! this is a violence orgy! BLOOD MUTHAFUCKA!"
it's also the new Devil May Cry game. Because the other doesnt exist.
But yes, Vamp, Gray Fox, and maybe a castlevania douche would be great choices.

FUCK YOUR CAPTCHA, ESCAPIST!
The question is "which board game is associated with toyota prius c?"
Fuck this shit. Between mod abuse and this nonsense, I don't like being on this site.
of course, me not posting won't accomplish anything, but I dont care. Be back in a month guys
o.o

Maybe relax a bit there, buddy, lol. I don't think any of that is really worth blowing a valve over.
 

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
"Playable Character"? I call shenanigans. That would mean they'd have to actually let us play a Metal Gear game to begin with.
At first I was all "I see what you did there! lolol." But then I was all "Oh wait... They're right... Man, fuck Metal Gear games."
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
"Playable Character"? I call shenanigans. That would mean they'd have to actually let us play a Metal Gear game to begin with.
Thats probably way people are complaining...
 

Flailing Escapist

New member
Apr 13, 2011
1,602
0
0
Jack and Calumon said:
Did the devs say that they had made this and were hanging it over our heads, slightly out of our reach unless we paid for it? Did they even say that it'll be launch day DLC? No, they didn't. The talk about DLC is probably because they have made plans to make some after finishing Rising. They need to plan ahead for what they have to do, so if DLC is part of that plan, that's fine. They need something to do during the long certification process, and if they plan what they want to do by designing it when the designers have some free time, that's also fine, as you want the programmers and art design people to keep busy, so if you lay out a plan first, you get your work done.

DLC does not need to be a bad word. Don't dismiss anyone who says their game will have DLC. They haven't said they're with holding content, but you automatically assume that. It's not right.

OT: Looking forward to it, depending on who they give us. I mean, they could give us anyone, Gray Fox, Vamp, Sam (The new Vamp), or even Snake again! Heck, maybe even Rose! That would be a laugh.

Calumon: But if she's fighting, she can't remind us what day tomorrow is! D:
You and you and me, Jack And Calumon, I don't care how cute people say you are.

Look, I'm sure even devs with the best intentions at least agree that they're going to work on some DLC (the expansion pack kind) and they'll start working on it AFTER they are finished with the game they're working on. I imagine games like Skyrim are like this, the thought that DLC is coming is always there but the what and why isn't approached until after the game is complete.

Look, menial DLC is the worst kind because DLC is one of three things:
1. Very much a good-to-god expansion pack, it's completely extra content but it's just made with the same engine and models with maybe a reskin here or there.
(recent examples: Dragon Age Origins: Awakening, the Fallout: New Vegas DLCs)
2. An online pass which is there to encourage players to buy the game new and punish those who don't.
(recent examples: Dead Space 2 online pass, the Mortal Combat online pass)
And
3.
Bullshit (besides the online pass). Tiny little things like different costumes, cheats (god forbid you give players a little replayablity w/ your game) and different characters, among many other things. This bullshit has no reason why it wasn't included in the original game (besides greed and not fucking thinking about it ((which I'd say argues for the fact of how unimportant it is)) ). If you didn't think about it before the game came out, it's menial and if you want players to have it why not patch it in with an update? Because money or stupid, of course.

Look, why are they talking about it like it's some big thing? It's not, it's a different playable character and those are never a big thing (if it was a big thing anyway they would have told us it's a big thing). They're here to what, tell us it's DLC? Which, again if they're talking about it now, like this is probably going to cost +what you'll pay for "just" the game.

Look, if they're talking about something menial for DLC it means they're greedy fucks (or just fucks, depending on how you look at it).
Why greedy?
Because there is no reason why something that small couldn't be put in the actual game and if you forgot about it until it's too late that it probably doesn't need to be in the game, does it? So if they're charging us for something menial that should've been in the game or not at all they are greedy fucks. Or just fucks if they forgot something menial or wanted to add something menial later but microsoft or sony charges so much even for the menial shlock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tl;dr
So, they're talking about menial bullshit that'll probably cost +what the actual game does and they're talking about it now which must mean they think it's important and if they think it's important they are idiots (forgetful or stupid) or greedy, greedy fucks.

-because it's not important. If it was important they'd be telling us how it's in the actual game (or they're stupid and/or greedy fucks).
-because they've already planned it out and if it's unimportant or greedy and that's kind of stupid either way
-because they're talking about it now so they think it's important and if they think it's important they're probably either greedy or stupid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So yes, they are waving something menial in front of our faces, asking us how much we can't wait to spend more money on it and using this (hoping desperately) to catch/keep our attention until the game comes out. -which is stupid if they're resorting to this menial bullshit to do it
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
TizzytheTormentor said:
I have to admit, I'm not a Metal Gear Solid fan but after seeing the gameplay trailer for this, all I can say is "I want it" It may be BETRAYAL! to some people, but to non-fans like me, I love the look of it.
Or to fans who can happen to keep a cool head and realize, hey, we've already had six games that play out in the sneaky, sleepy-shooty, fire-RPGs-at-Metal-Gear type of game-play and this change isn't going to ruin the series forever. Especially since... they're not calling it Metal Gear Solid anymore. People didn't say Metal Gear Acid ruined the series forever because it was basically a card game, did they? (They may have, I don't know, I wasn't exactly following gaming news back then.)

On topic: They already have DLC planned...just...put...it...in...the...damn...game...NOW! This is why DLC is getting a bad rep, because before, it added post game content, now, it's a cash-grab to get more money for shit they could have put on the disk.
As for this, well... "planned" =/= equal "began development of". Saying "Oh yeah, this is an idea!" doesn't mean "Oh yeah, this is already three-quarters of the way finished, we're just not going to include it in the final product!" just because they're still developing the game.

This is why DLC is getting a bad rep. Because even when it's not being used as Day-One DLC or Disk-locked Content, if it's mentioned before the game is released then gamers are going to start pouring flames on it.
 

Jack and Calumon

Digimon are cool.
Dec 29, 2008
4,190
0
0
Flailing Escapist said:
I don't care how cute people say I am either.
[sub]Calumon: They're always talking about me anyway! ^^[/sub]

Now, you assume that you know about this DLC and call it Menial, meaning you believe it's something lazy that's been thrown together and charging us for it. Yes, it is totally understandable to hate such DLC and I too hate DLC that is like that. Was I satisfied when I was presented with the Assassin's Creed 2 DLC? No, because that actually was ripped out the game and sold to me and required zero effort to actually make it. It was also incredibly underwhelming, much to my dismay.

However there is no evidence to support the claims made in your argument there, as I shall prove here.

1: You said for why it's bad "because it's not important. If it was important they'd be telling us how it's in the actual game (or they're stupid and/or greedy fucks)."

Now you said that they seem to be holding this up as if it's important, which I'm afraid I cannot find any evidence that they do actually believe this.

The quote from the interview says this.

"Right now we don't have any plans for competitive online play or anything like that," Platinum Games producer, Yuji Korekado, told GameTrailers. "However, we do have plans for some downloadable content after the release of the game that will allow you to play as a different character or experience different types of missions."
That is all they said. This was actually a question about multiplayer, which he said no to, but did say that they will be using online services to provide DLC as an after comment. They did not even give out concrete evidence that they had made any progress on this DLC or had an idea of what they were doing. Merely saying that they had "plans for some downloadable content after the release of the game". "Some plans" does not constitute them holding it up as something important, and instead gives the impression that not even they know for sure what they are doing.

They do make mention of some ideas, such as playing as a different character or different types of missions, but they are still being vague, and thus are still not holding this up as important, like you claim.

2. You said for why it's bad "because they've already planned it out and if it's unimportant or greedy and that's kind of stupid either way"

Before you point it out, yes I know I'm taking these from your TL;DR, but these are perfect summaries of the points you are making, as a TL;DR should be. I did read your post, hence why I am arguing here.

You say that "they've already planned it out" but saying they have "some plans" could mean anything from a desgin document to a sticky note of things that they think would be cool for the game. You do not know how far along their plans for DLC are, which, based on how vague and un-talkative they were about it. Barely any details, nor even a confirmation that they were even doing this. They only said they had plans.

3. You said for why it was bad "-because they're talking about it now so they think it's important and if they think it's important they're probably either greedy or stupid"

Right, this is basically a summary of your last two points. They only mentioned it briefly as an after comment, to make up for the fact that some may see the fact they have no plans for multiplayer as a bad point, so them saying they want to support it post launch is totally fine by me, and does not imply that they think it is important.

But your main point in your argument was that you argued it is "menial" (we both know it was, you used the word with such frequency that one could argue that you used it instead of a comma), but I would like to bring up the point of "You don't know, you can't know" to this, since, to be frank, you don't know, nor can you know about what they are going to offering to the plate here. A new character and missions does not imply something hashly put together and made. A new character can dramatically change the playstyle in the game, like playing as a completely different class in an RPG. A wizard is not a barbarian, and no-one is saying that this is just going to be a re-skin. The fact they also said different types of missions brings forth an image that they are actually looking to innovate the gameplay in the game, and if you take approaching missions from a new stance and combine them with a new character, you can get DLC that I would call you out on for being Menial.

Your move, sir.
 

Flailing Escapist

New member
Apr 13, 2011
1,602
0
0
Jack and Calumon said:
I'm going to try to keep this one shorter not that I don't love writing and reading paragraphs on DLC (a.k.a. stupid, stupid, stupid) -actually that's exactly it. But you seem O.K. and I think you deserve an answer. Maybe. Probably. Whatever.

"Different character or different types of missions" are tiny, miniscule, irrelevant things almost all of the time.
[sub]For example: games like DMC3:Dante's Awakening, DMC2, Silent Hill 2 Greatest Hits, Hard Corps: Uprising (except Sayuri), Bayonetta, the RE5 DLC, the Dragon Age: Origins DLC and many more have extra playable characters. Some are reskins and some have their own moves, looks and such. Either way they are pretty insignificant and if they are in the game that's great but if they can't make it in or are overlooked they probably shouldn't be included in the game at all, right? Forcing them in with DLC is pointless and possibly stupidly greedy.

Granted, some games DO have extra playable characters that either have their own story or change the main campaign completely but these are few and far between and probably not this^.
[/sub]
Tiny, miniscule, irrelevant, pointless, minor, meaningless things should be packaged with the actual game or not at all - seeing how they're tiny, miniscule, irrelevant, pointless, minor, meaningless, nonessential, little, trivial things. Forcing them in with paid DLC is stupid, nonsensical and pointless if not greedy, stupid, nonsensical and pointless.

The fact that they are mentioning it at all (dropping the hint) is irritating because almost all of the time (and almost certainly here) "different character or different types of missions" are tiny, miniscule, irrelevant, pointless, minor, meaningless, nonessential, little, trivial, unimportant, worthless and frivolous.

So why would they mention it at all unless they think it is important. If they think it's important than it's probably paid DLC which is silly because "different character or different types of missions" are tiny, miniscule, irrelevant, pointless, minor, meaningless, nonessential, little, trivial, unimportant, worthless and frivolous almost all of the time (and almost certainly here).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tl;dr
So, paid DLC that is tiny, miniscule, irrelevant, pointless, minor, meaningless, nonessential, little, trivial, unimportant, worthless and frivolous that is talked about, seemingly important (even though it probably won't be - Bayonetta's wasn't) before the game even comes out really bugs the fuck out of me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, they haven't said much (and yet they have) so far and they haven't given any details.
Yes, it could be more involving and more indepth than any other "different character or different types of missions" in any other game.
Yes, it could be free.

But
It will probably be tiny, miniscule, irrelevant, pointless, minor, meaningless, nonessential, little, trivial, unimportant, worthless and frivolous.
And
It'll probably be paid DLC


The fact that they are talking about it and are obviously thinking about making the tiny, miniscule, irrelevant, pointless, minor, meaningless, nonessential, little, trivial, unimportant, worthless and frivolous "different character or different types of missions" DLC, if it's paid DLC is stupid.
 

Scrythe

Premium Gasoline
Jun 23, 2009
2,368
0
0
Alright everyone, place your bets!

My money's on Connor from Assassin's Creed III. It makes sense.

Next runner up would probably be some new character introduced in this game.

Last guess would be Drebin, because why the fuck not?