wow be afraid of games now.

#21Gai_DaigoujiPosted 7/30/2010 1:29:57 AM
Developers just can't seem to win when it comes to DLC. Set it during the game (ie. Mass Effect 2) people complain it doesn't make much sense during the post game and doesn't continue the story. Set it after the end (Alan Wake, Prince of Persia) people whine about it being the real ending to the game, even though in both those cases it blatantly isn't.

Release it a while after the release of the game, people whine about waiting too long and not caring anymore. Release it early, people whine that it should have been included with the game. Charge money for it, whine it should be free. Make it free, people will find a way to whine anyway.
---
"Of course the victim was flying through the air! You can see it right there in the sketch! ...Whooooosh!"
PSN ID - DoctorSalvador, GameTag - Elgar88
#22IcemaelPosted 7/30/2010 2:13:59 AM

What people don't realize is that the only difference between DLC and "proper" games is that one is sold exclusively in digital, downloadable form. The Signal and The Writer are sequels to Alan Wake; they're just a whole lot shorter -- and therefore cheaper -- than full retail products. If you're gonna whine about the DLC, you might as well whine about how the "proper" sequel contains the "real" Alan Wake ending and should have been included in the first game, too.

#23shawnmckPosted 7/30/2010 9:09:15 AM
You cannot say that "the Signal DLC is no different than" the DLC in Fallout 3, Resident Evil 5, ES: Oblivion, and others...because those games had an ending. The DLC was just extra side story.
That is NOT the case with Alan Wake & the Signal DLC.
Alan Wake never had a true ending, but ended with a cliffhanger. The Signal DLC starts off exactly where AW ended, and again ends in a cliffhanger.
Whats different is that with Alan Wake you are pretty much forced to buy the DLC if you want to experience a true ending.

You can excuse it all you want, but Alan Wake & the Signal ended with a cliffhanger ending.
That's not much different than a movie ending with a cliffhanger & forcing you to watch subsequent movies to experience the true ending. But you don't know how far it is going to go, or if it is just going to string you along.
At least with movies like the Lord of the Rings we knew before hand that it was going to be a trilogy and that after the third movie it was going to end.
But with Alan Wake we have no idea how far this is going to go before it ends...and worse, it may never end but keep playing out like a soap-opera that has no conclusion.
That just plain sucks no matter how you try to slice it.
This is a game, not a F'n weekly tv sitcom.
With Alan Wake, I feel like a cow & they are gonna try & milk me dry.
#24BarrenPosted 7/30/2010 9:40:42 AM
Well, you don't have to buy everything if you don't want to. It's perfectly possible to consider that Alan Wake ends with the protagonist rescuing his wife and getting stuck in the Dark Place, which is the kind of ending that some media do use (Stephen King does that a lot, doesn't he?).

Leaving loose ends is not the same as a cliffhanger ending; chapter 6 of the game does the former, The Signal and chapters 1 to 5 do the latter.
#25shawnmckPosted 7/30/2010 11:05:08 AM
^ Your trying to justify again.
Leaving major loose ends sure as hell constitutes as cliffhanger.
#26IcemaelPosted 7/30/2010 2:42:38 PM

The reason both Alan Wake and its DLC end with cliffhangers is that unlike most games, which are structured like movies, Alan Wake is structured like a TV show. The first game is season one. The second game will be season two. The Signal and The Writer are two "special" episodes that bridge the two.

If you didn't notice, every episode so far has ended on a cliffhanger. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, The Signal, and yes, most likely The Writer, too. That's right: neither The Signal nor The Writer will wrap the story up. Neither will offer a "true ending", because a TV show's "true ending" ending doesn't come until the very last episode.

If you don't like the story, guess what, you're free to stop buying Alan Wake products. If you do like the story -- then what the hell are you complaining about? That you have to pay for products you enjoy? That you don't get the ending to a story that spans at least two full games and two pieces of DLC simply by buying the first game, even though that wouldn't make any sense at all?

#27Am4zingL4rryPosted 7/30/2010 6:52:08 PM
I find it funny someone is saying Alan Wake had no ending, because it did. The goal of the game was to rescue his wife from the eldritch horror living underneath Cauldron Lake which he did and that was the ending. There were threads left loose intentionally for the sequel, the story of which was apparently already mostly written if Sam Lake is to be believed (and I believe him) before the first game hit the shelves.

I remember people whined about Gears of War 2 for the same reason, because they didnt' get it with that game either. The goal was to destroy the locust city and kill the locusts in it which is how the game ended. Just because they never explained the sires or the Adam Fenix stuff doesn't mean it's a plothole, they left that stuff for the next one intentionally but it DID have an ending.

Also as someone else has already said The Signal is not the first dlc in extending beyond the ending, Fallout 3: Broken Steel did exactly the same thing.

Plus I gotta ask if you thought Alan wake wasn't a good game why did you bother with it's DLC? I never downloaded the Dragon Age Origins DLC because I didn't like Dragon Age Origins all that much, or more accurately I thought it was an ok fantasy story mired down by an utterly awful tedious and poorly balanced combat system and I didn't feel like doing any more of it.
---
I can't think of a good sig
#28BarrenPosted 7/31/2010 1:32:54 PM
shawnmck, I'm afraid we might simply not have the same definition of a cliffhanger then. From the first online dictionary I found on Google:

"World English Dictionary
cliffhanger (ˈklɪfˌhæŋə)

— n
1. a. a situation of imminent disaster usually occurring at the end of each episode of a serialized film "

Imminent disaster. As in, the protagonist litterally hanging from a cliff. Therefore, not the same as loose ends.

And yes, I'm trying to justify a point of view that I happen to agree with, it's called argumentation. Is there something wrong with that?

If you'd like to propose a different definition of cliffhanger, either your own or from another third party source, then go ahead. But I think the one above reflect the idea I have of the term.
#29DrakebunnyPosted 7/31/2010 5:15:16 PM

Icemael posted...

The reason both Alan Wake and its DLC end with cliffhangers is that unlike most games, which are structured like movies, Alan Wake is structured like a TV show. The first game is season one. The second game will be season two. The Signal and The Writer are two "special" episodes that bridge the two.

If you didn't notice, every episode so far has ended on a cliffhanger. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, The Signal, and yes, most likely The Writer, too. That's right: neither The Signal nor The Writer will wrap the story up. Neither will offer a "true ending", because a TV show's "true ending" ending doesn't come until the very last episode.

If you don't like the story, guess what, you're free to stop buying Alan Wake products. If you do like the story -- then what the hell are you complaining about? That you have to pay for products you enjoy? That you don't get the ending to a story that spans at least two full games and two pieces of DLC simply by buying the first game, even though that wouldn't make any sense at all?



This, pretty much.

#30BarrenPosted 7/31/2010 8:59:30 PM
Another thing that I'd like to add, too, is that loose ends are actually good for us gamers.

Take the example of a game that's developed with relatively modest expectations, but happens to be a hit. Publisher asks developers for a sequel. Now, if the developers didn't leave any loose ends at all in the original game, the new story that they're going to come up with may very well end up being forced, unnecessary and just plain bad. Think Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the new world, or Bioshock 2 for instance. Sequels to games that are self-contained enough often are bad moves.

So basically, leaving loose ends in a game is a way for the developers to have something to build upon in future contents, whether or not that contents is already planned when the game is being developped.