Metro: Last Light

**Joust Williams** · 13 May 2013, 10:11 AM

Since most difficulty stuff is imbalanced, I'd rather keep content in, even if it might be B-tier. Ranger Mode is probably 'miss a knife throw, have the entire level blare alarms and run all around until the level is over'. Hell, the regular mode will be if they didn't fix that issue. Biggest problem in the game by far.

**Yoshi** · 13 May 2013, 01:12 PM

Edge review: "4A Game’s world-building is the equal of BioShock: Infinite’s astonishing journey."

edit: Eurogamer's is up too.

Sites whose reviews you should never read probably will add more.

**Hero** · 13 May 2013, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Yoshi

would you rather see additional difficulties or content held back for DLC?

I wouldn't, because it's the same incremental practice of Project Ten Dollar, et al. It conditions people to be ok with these practices by doing it slowly over the course of time until it's the new normal, giving publishers ground to push even further for more money.

**Yoshi** · 13 May 2013, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Hero

I wouldn't, because it's the same incremental practice of Project Ten Dollar, et al. It conditions people to be ok with these practices by doing it slowly over the course of time until it's the new normal, giving publishers ground to push even further for more money.

I may be a pessimist (and "may" might be generous), but I think that ship has sailed, and we lost. We're now at choice #2: which types of early DLC do we want, since we're not getting rid of it?

Look at how many people subscribe to Xbox Live, Call of Duty Elite, and Battlefield Premium. I was blown away by how much money EA has made from the latter, according to their last investors call. In my opinion, the value propositions in each of those is terrible, but clearly I'm either in the minority, or the minority is large enough to be wildly profitable. If people will pay $15/month or $50/year or whatever, I'd drop $5-10 DLC all over if I were a publisher too.

**icarusfall** · 13 May 2013, 02:07 PM

Love the first one despite it's shortcomings. Looking forward to this one in the same way.

**Hero** · 13 May 2013, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I may be a pessimist (and "may" might be generous), but I think that ship has sailed, and we lost. We're now at choice #2: which types of early DLC do we want, since we're not getting rid of it?

In a weird way, it's why indie games are nice - they harken back to older gaming sensibilities of gameplay first, and tend to be small enough that they aren't trying to nickel and dime you.

In a weirder way, it's what makes Nintendo being so backwards in online so nice. They're just figuring out that you can ask for money for DLC, not pre-baking that nonsense into their games from the get-go. You may hate something like NSMB or Fire Emblem, but those games feel done, not like pieces were held back to feed people later.

I suppose the "real" answer is to quit new games. It's not like you have to be a part of the ecosystem if it's changed in such a way that you're only asking which bad-scenario is most preferred. If that's the future outlook for a hobby, then why bother with keeping current any longer?

**Yoshi** · 13 May 2013, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Hero

In a weird way, it's why indie games are nice - they harken back to older gaming sensibilities of gameplay first, and tend to be small enough that they aren't trying to nickel and dime you.

[Warning: Painting with broad strokes approaching] I think indies just nickle and dime differently in a lot of cases. These lazy games that come out with 8 or 16-bit graphics may not be asking for money for DLC, but they're asking too much for the level of polish in a lot of cases.

In a weirder way, it's what makes Nintendo being so backwards in online so nice. They're just figuring out that you can ask for money for DLC, not pre-baking that nonsense into their games from the get-go. You may hate something like NSMB or Fire Emblem, but those games feel done, not like pieces were held back to feed people later.

I think that's a fair point. I just wish they'd be backwards with their small handful of series I care about: Star Fox, Pikmin, Yoshi, etc. instead of those I really don't.

I suppose the "real" answer is to quit new games. It's not like you have to be a part of the ecosystem if it's changed in such a way that you're only asking which bad-scenario is most preferred. If that's the future outlook for a hobby, then why bother with keeping current any longer?

I'm increasingly reaching this conclusion and actually following through. Xbox Live is bullshit, and I tired of supporting Microsoft in general, so I sold off all of my 360 stuff. I was tempted by the Star Wars system but was able to resist. Coincidentally, I have gotten and will get the same opportunity with the SWTOR expansion and EA's development deal with Disney. I'm not using Origin, and I'm not going to buy a console version and give them the same revenue while avoiding it. So I'll either buy used or skip those games all together.

I'm already pretty selective on DLC, so I don't think I need to change much there, and there are certainly examples other than Star Wars, but those are easy/obvious ones.

**Mzo** · 13 May 2013, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Hero

In a weirder way, it's what makes Nintendo being so backwards in online so nice. They're just figuring out that you can ask for money for DLC, not pre-baking that nonsense into their games from the get-go. You may hate something like NSMB or Fire Emblem, but those games feel done, not like pieces were held back to feed people later.

It sounds like someone hasn't seen the paid DLC for Fire Emblem: Awakening.