Everyone loves more of the toughest game on the planet. What's not so great is the announcement's pitch: "DLC Trilogy."
Well that was a lot of poorly written text. Basically the guy is just whining that it's a "trilogy" instead of an "expansion," and (tries to) argues that partitioning out the content into three pieces somehow does a disservice to consumers. Only worthwhile thing is the Baldur's Gate screenshot.
Yeah it was very poorly worded, I gotta headache from reading it (didn't read all of it)
I suppose you can do a lot better then... Thanks for the feedback, I thought it was quite good myself.
The author can do a lot better simply by excising a lot of the meaningless words and sentences that clutter up the essay. Revision is often more important than the initial writing process.
So uhm, hi? I'm the author of that. I seem to have noticed this at the right time. In case you'd like to know: Even though I'm not required to, I sent this piece to another person for additional edit, beyond my process (new eyes and loving the sound of your own voice and all that). Then, it went to a third person before publication. I'm not sure what revision standards you'd like, but those are a few passes already. I'd wager anywhere above from a dozen. Also, but this is of course not apparent in the article, it's the most cut-down "essay" to date. It's brought back to more than 30% (at least), from cutting droning auxiliary points and compiling other arguments into a more concise structure, in comparison with other work on that site. I felt it was necessary, since this is a timed piece, not to ramble too much. If you want to research those bogus claims, you could see some segments of this piece fully cut in half, when viewing other articles on that site. There's even a part "missing," with just 4 main sections, instead of the usual 5. I mean, you don't have to research that at all when claiming the article is both too long and has no arguments, but it's there, if you'd like. Thanks for your views, regardless. I appreciate it. And as an editor elsewhere, I fully agree: More revision is definitely important. Good you dug the Throne of Bhaal shout-out. I try to keep it real.
Well, in that case I would argue that the revisions/review process was inadequate. Even though it's an essay, it's essentially a journalistic essay. That means brevity is the rule of the day. Given how prolific games writing is, you're not liable to find many people willing to read through something that is "overwritten." You need to be concise. I realize my criticisms have been very general and that's really the worst sort of criticism to give, but unless I'm speaking to the writer him or herself it's pointless to go into specifics. I can go into more depth if you'd like, but just to give some examples of the superfluous stuff I'm talking about: Clauses/sentences with no real meaning: "...which is extra capitalized," "It's not a cheap contract signed between parties either," "...is the divide between Dark Souls, its crowd, and the announced content." Unexplained gross assumptions and generalizations: "routinely is seen in the mainstreem franchises. Shooters and spectacles sell air like this...." etc., etc. Then there's the fact that the premise itself is problematic: you're essentially condemning the DLC without knowing anything about it aside from its monetization mode.
I don't think it reads in the way you imply at all... But each to their own. We are more than happy with our author's work.
more dark souls is never a bad thing.
Everyone does dlc, yet for some reason Dark Souls doing it is somehow a bad thing? Last I checked DS1's dlc was one of the best dlcs ever released.
It's a little sad that as gamers, particularly of non-mainstream games, we feel like we are, somehow, above the 'populace' as the author calls the more mainstream gamers. We find it deplorable when it seems like those 'corporate-scumbags' want to turn our beloved franchises into mere money making opportunities, as though they were making these games for any other reason whatsoever. From Software overplayed their hand, and we 'caught' them. Here's what we have to keep in mind, if we don't want this DLC, we don't have to buy it. We CAN buy it, but we don't have to. We need to realize that we are, however, not above the 'populace' in fact, in some ways, we are behind them. They have accepted that the games they play are merely money making machines for their creators, and they don't need that fact hidden from them. It would seem as though we still do, but all we're asking is that the game companies sneak around and take our money without us noticing. We should accept businesses for who they are and ask that they not sneak around but rather just be honest with us...like they do with the 'populace'
DLC MMMMMMM i didn't pay a dime for DS2 thanks to msft si I'm getting the DLC
I think the author saying a 3 part DLC would have been better as a complete single expansion for numerous reasons.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.