The Dissonance in Dark Souls II DLC

Everyone loves more of the toughest game on the planet. What's not so great is the announcement's pitch: "DLC Trilogy."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Xof1586d ago

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.

Hellsvacancy1583d ago

Yeah it was very poorly worded, I gotta headache from reading it (didn't read all of it)

webmednet1586d ago

I suppose you can do a lot better then...

Thanks for the feedback, I thought it was quite good myself.

Xof1586d ago

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.

Daavpuke1586d ago

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.

Xof1586d ago

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," " 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.

webmednet1586d ago

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.

ziggurcat1586d ago

more dark souls is never a bad thing.

Kenshin_BATT0USAI1586d ago

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.

Show all comments (12)