I don’t want dlc to count for my percentage

[Eagle]

On 03/05/2021 at 10:46 PM, AyeOfReach said:

No, I think this site is populated with devs. I can be sure when my post is gonna get upvoted... yeah, you got it right, it's when I'm gonna praise any game.

 

LOL. I genuinely don't know if that's a crazier or saner theory.

 

First, why do you even care so much about reputation? It literally gives you a full plate of nothing, with diddly-squat on the side and zero for dessert. Second, if you do care that much about rep, maybe try not begging for it or post a lot in threads like Most Recent Platinum, but that's besides the point.

 

Also, I'm not a big fan of DLCs, but damn, some people in here act like DLCs made them run a marathon and the floor they had to run on was full of Legos.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Eagle

[BGriff1986]

2 minutes ago, BRKs_Eagle said:

Also, I'm not a big fan of DLCs, but damn, some people in here act like DLCs made them run a marathon and the floor they had to run on was full of Legos.

If you want to 100% Lego Dimensions it basically is!

[Helyx]

Glad to see this little "discussion" has run its course.

 

See you guys in 6 months for the next episode of "Shit's fucked and here's why".

[ArtMontef]

Jesus christ, looking through contents of this trainwreck thread all I could think is that trophy hunters seem to be the the most entitled and whiny gamers ever. 

 

But at least entertainment from these threads is top notch

[Ich1994-1994]

22 hours ago, Deadly_Ha_Ha said:

Well, my actual answer is because I think hiding trophies looks worse than just having all your games displayed. If you feel like your account was worsened then you really only have yourself to blame or you just make a new account. Just my opinion

I thought he was being ironic tbh

of course i only have myself to blame who else should have put those trophies into my account? why would i make a new account? seems insame to me to losse almost 400 platinums and 13 years of collceting when i can also just hide the games i dont like

[AJ_Radio]

On 5/3/2021 at 2:38 AM, Arcesius said:

It is even worse than that. Not all owners of the base game are factored into the DLC rarities, but the100% completion of a game is based on all base game owners  That results in stuff like Diablo 3 not having a single UR trophy but the 100% completion being as low as 2.4%...

 

The system is flawed sure, but I think it's better now than it was a few years ago. When I first joined up on PSNP most DLC trophies were common because they only counted the number of people who have earned at least one trophy. So for instance if a DLC trophy had 100% rarity and had 10,000 game owners, then it meant that 10,000 people had that trophy. Base game owners did not count for the DLC in regards to percentages. Then sometime in 2017 a change was made to where it is based on all base game owners, resulting in DLC trophies drastically dropping in rarity percentage.

 

Might be unfair for people who don't care for DLC but it is what it is. If someone can think up of a better suggestion to how DLC rarities should be calculated, I'm all ears.

 

On 5/3/2021 at 2:38 AM, Arcesius said:

Anyways, quickly on topic. A platinum trophy is simply a trophy denoting that you have completed the BASE GAME of some selected games (since, you know.. not all base games have a platinum trophy). It does not denote that you have completed all of that game's trophy content and, consequently, it should not give you an automatic 100% completion of the entire trophy list. 

 

It's up to you whether you are content with completing only base game content or not, but it is not up to you to define what it means to complete a trophy list. 

 

These days a lot of platinum trophies do not ask you for 100% completion. Far from that. A real completionist goes for doing most of everything even if it doesn't have trophies attached to it.

 

That is why I am vocal when it comes to Rata stacks only asking you to do maybe 10 - 20% of the actual game for the platinum. That in my eyes is a clear indicator that there is no quality control for the trophy system.

 

On 5/3/2021 at 3:18 AM, MatThaRiPP3R84 said:

just make sure you know what your getting into, Don't buy a new game only to get fucked by it's dlc. rent the bastard play it on a second account if you absolutely must play a game you're unsure of. it's cheaper to rent, costs nothing to play online providing you play for plus on one of those accounts.

 

generally capcom games have full bore cancer dlc. devil may cry, resident evil literally all their ips, just know what your getting into, other then that most games are easy

 

Yeah because you completely skipped Ghost of Tsushima because it contains the Raids DLC, which requires boosting with other players. Quite a bender right?

 

On 5/3/2021 at 7:38 AM, Boomshanks said:

Wow, so because some dlc is overpriced now all dlc is greedy and overpriced and should be free? I've played plenty of dlc which has added incredible value for its price. And no, not all dlc was content that was cut from the original game. What a black-and-white view some people have.

 

What is it with all the crybabies on this site recently. When something doesn't go exactly their way or they have to spend some money or actually put some time and effort into a game they cry foul and want the entire system to be changed. Jesus.

 

Oh and I'd also like an angry (and slightly disappointed) handjob from Jlaw please.

 

It's cancel culture at work. Kids being spoonfed crap on a silver platter.

 

On 5/3/2021 at 11:54 AM, HoorayForTyler said:

If you started a game on your profile, I don’t think you should have the ability to hide it after the fact. Plus it gives cheaters more of an incentive to do what they do best and easily get away with being on the leaderboards still.
 

But changing how percentages work with games and their DLC? That would be extra tacky. But alas, that’s just my opinion. 

 

When they have thousands of hidden trophies that is an automatic red flag, and I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't be listed on the leaderboards.

 

I am however, more forgiving for those who played say GTA V or Call of Duty: World of War both on the PS3, and got flagged because of trophies popping automatically from hackers/modders. In that situation I can sort of back them up in a flagged games dispute.

 

But those who outright cheated and then hid hundreds/thousands of trophies? They don't deserve to be on the leaderboards at all.

 

On 5/3/2021 at 1:30 PM, dieselmanchild said:

This has always been my gripe with DLCs. Out of all the games I’ve played and bought DLC for, I can only think of a couple off the top of my head (The Witcher 3, Bloodborne etc.) that were actually so well done and different than the main game that it completely justified the purchase price, and felt very fulfilling to complete.

 

The vast majority of DLC I’ve bought ends up feeling like filler content that was held back from the main game for the express purpose of milking extra dollars out of players a few months after release. A lot of DLC just feels plain lazy and uninspired, and doesn’t add anything new to the experience, it only elongates it.
 

Being a trophy hunter makes it extra annoying too, as I often feel obligated or pressured to waste a bunch of extra cash on DLC just to feel like I actually completed the game. As time goes on, I’ve stopped caring so much and will often leave games incomplete if the DLC doesn’t look worth it, but the completionist part of me is still a little bothered.

 

The majority of the player base (and trophy hunters too) seem to love DLCs and can’t throw their money at them fast enough. But personally, it annoys me that this business model has become the standard. I’d rather just pay a bit more for the base game that feels like a full experience with nothing held back.

 

Now, this is an actual intelligent response. Many of the responses I see here automatically point fingers and say all DLC should be removed and vilified, which is complete bogus.

 

I had this sort of issue with LA Noire. The DLC story cases I felt ultimately played some part in the story arc, but you had to pay money for each one. The PS3 version of the game came with The Consol's Car story DLC, which was at the time exclusive. You were able to buy LA Noire: The Complete Edition on disc, but most people just bought the regular version which left out the DLC story cases. This was the first time where I felt the developers specifically leaving out these story cases so people would pay money for them. Obviously, most people skipped these cases because they didn't want to pay more money than they already did. It was $60 for LA Noire, then another $20 - 30 for the DLC story cases.

 

All of the Saints Row games, Sleeping Dogs and several other games had DLC that immediately felt tacked on. And naturally most people just skipped the DLC. There was a big controversy over DLC back in the late 2000s but because that was so long ago now we've come to practically accept it all without asking second questions. Ubisoft completely relishes in DLC, practically every major AAA game they make and publish you can safely bet will come with DLC. And most of their DLC is utterly tacked on without much effort.

 

In the past you had Expansion Packs. These were additions that greatly enhanced the experience and added many cool and innovative features. Starcraft is a prime example. That wasn't the same as the DLC as we know it today. The business practice has changed. Companies like Ubisoft and 2K Games not only thrive on DLC, they practically opened up in-game marketplaces for you to spend dozens and hundreds of dollars for microtransactions.

Edited May 6, 2021 by AJ_Radio

[Arcesius]

46 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

Then sometime in 2017 a change was made to where it is based on all base game owners, resulting in DLC trophies drastically dropping in rarity percentage.

 

Might be unfair for people who don't care for DLC but it is what it is. If someone can think up of a better suggestion to how DLC rarities should be calculated, I'm all ears.

 

A better suggestion? Sure... The thing is, the change didn't make it so that DLC rarities are computed based on all base game owners alone. Instead, the geometric mean between base game owners and DLC trophy achievers is used to determine the amount of DLC owners. For... reasons...?

 

This is.. random? ridiculous? unrealistic? Probably all three. 

 

Personally, I would want DLC trophy rarities to be based on base game owners alone. The issue that started this thread is that DLC trophy lists are automatically added to your game's list even if you don't own the DLC, right? Well then... just use everyone with that trophy list on their profile to calculate rarities. The statistics of all base game owners are affected by DLC trophy lists being added to a game. Then, what's the point in trying estimate the actual number of DLC owners in the first place? If you own a (base) game and DLC gets added and you decide not to play it... that's your choice. It's still part of the game's trophy list. 

 

This is especially true with free DLC, but in my opinion should also be applied to paid DLC. 

 

There are a couple of "issues" that would be solved by doing this... First of all, you would get rid of the discrepancy within the DLC-rarity logic of this site itself. The one where 100%-completion rarities are computed based on all base game owners, but the individual DLC-trophy rarities follow a different logic. You would also avoid having trophies for beating NG+ being less rare than those for beating NG, which just looks pretty ridiculous. 

 

Anyways, this is a topic for another thread. 

[HusKy]

37 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

Personally, I would want DLC trophy rarities to be based on base game owners alone.

 

I used to think this would be the best way, but I did some quick math couple months back and I'm not so sure about it. If calculated this way, it would shift rarities down drastically. Many of the paid DLCs would turn into full UR sets. It would open another can of worms and I'm not sure it's worth it at this point.

Edited May 6, 2021 by HusKy

[DrBloodmoney]

35 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

I used to think this would be the best way, but I did some quick math couple months back and I'm not so sure about it. If calculated this way, it would shift rarities down drastically. Many of the paid DLCs would turn into full UR sets. It would open another can of worms and I'm not sure it's worth it at this point.

 

That's true, but I don't think it should be a factor.

 

Personally, I don't think that basing the philosophy of how the dlc is treated on what the results would end up being is the right call here.

 

IMO, if the dlc is considered a part of the game (which it clearly is, given that it is included in the overall game percentage on the site, and is required for S-Rank), then the rarity should be based on the owners of the base game too - If the dlc is required to get the S-Rank, then the site is, at least tacitly, endorsing the idea that purchasing dlc is a necessary part of 'completing' a game's trophy list.

 

If that results in many more dlc's being pushed into the UR territory, then...well... so be it.

After all, the rarity is just that - the rarity - the stats are just reflecting the actual data. 

Trying to 'jimmy' the method, just to ensure the rarity values more accurately reflect something they are not actually purporting to represent - i.e. the difficulty of actually achieving the trophies - is a fools errand in a way, given that, as has been oft repeated, (though, admittedly, even more oft misunderstood!): Difficulty =/= Rarity.

 

If a trophy is achieved by 1 out 100 players, it's rarity should be 1% - whether that trophy is a 100 hour, brutally difficult slog, or a 1s auto pop - and crucially, whether it involves an additional purchase of a dlc pack should be immaterial -  the rarity value should still reflect one thing and one thing only - that 1 out of 100 people got it. 

 

Just my 2-cents of course, and this is a debate that has been going on since before I joined the site almost a decade ago!

Edited May 6, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[AJ_Radio]

1 hour ago, Arcesius said:

 

A better suggestion? Sure... The thing is, the change didn't make it so that DLC rarities are computed based on all base game owners alone. Instead, the geometric mean between base game owners and DLC trophy achievers is used to determine the amount of DLC owners. For... reasons...?

 

This is.. random? ridiculous? unrealistic? Probably all three. 

 

Personally, I would want DLC trophy rarities to be based on base game owners alone. The issue that started this thread is that DLC trophy lists are automatically added to your game's list even if you don't own the DLC, right? Well then... just use everyone with that trophy list on their profile to calculate rarities. The statistics of all base game owners are affected by DLC trophy lists being added to a game. Then, what's the point in trying estimate the actual number of DLC owners in the first place? If you own a (base) game and DLC gets added and you decide not to play it... that's your choice. It's still part of the game's trophy list. 

 

This is especially true with free DLC, but in my opinion should also be applied to paid DLC. 

 

There are a couple of "issues" that would be solved by doing this... First of all, you would get rid of the discrepancy within the DLC-rarity logic of this site itself. The one where 100%-completion rarities are computed based on all base game owners, but the individual DLC-trophy rarities follow a different logic. You would also avoid having trophies for beating NG+ being less rare than those for beating NG, which just looks pretty ridiculous. 

 

Anyways, this is a topic for another thread. 

 

I thought the DLC rarities prior to the change were just ridiculous. I mean 100% trophy rarity? Some DLCs that had only one trophy in them were automatically 100%. I remember the DLC rarity for Batman: Arkham City in regards to the challenges being absurdly high, and I know they take a lot of work to finish because I went ahead and did all of them in that game.

 

The way this website calculates DLC rarity is seriously flawed, it's just not complete garbage like it was. Plenty of NG+ trophies were common, and generally NG+ is more difficult than NG.

 

48 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

I used to think this would be the best way, but I did some quick math couple months back and I'm not so sure about it. If calculated this way, it would shift rarities down drastically. Many of the paid DLCs would turn into full UR sets. It would open another can of worms and I'm not sure it's worth it at this point.

 

The rarity being that low wouldn't be deserving for a lot of paid DLCs.

 

17 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

If that results in many more dlc's being pushed into the UR territory, then...well... so be it.

After all, the rarity is just that - the rarity - the stats are just reflecting the actual data. 

Trying to 'jimmy' the method, just to ensure the rarity values more accurately reflect something they are not actually purporting to represent - i.e. the difficulty of actually achieving the trophies - is a fools errand in a way, given that, as has been oft repeated, (though, admittedly, even more oft misunderstood!): Difficulty =/= Rarity.

 

If a trophy is achieved by 1 out 100 players, it's rarity should be 1% - whether that trophy is a 100 hour, brutally difficult slog, or a 1s auto pop - and crucially, whether it involves an additional purchase of a dlc pack should be immaterial -  the rarity value should still reflect one thing and one thing only - that 1 out of 100 people got it. 

 

Just my 2-cents of course, and this is a debate that has been going on since before I joined the site almost a decade ago!

 

There's literally a bunch of shoestring budget indie games on the PS4 that have extremely low percentages in regard to completion simply because most people played them for 30 mins - 1 hour, then moved on never to pick them up again. For a number of them I wouldn't rate them any higher than a 3 or 4 out of 10 in difficulty.

 

In contrast, I find Hard Core difficulty in Dead Space 2 to be more stressful and difficult than the vast majority of games I've finished. Yet the platinum is well above 5% rarity. Something like Dark Souls is entirely subjective. If you did everything yourself and you're new to Dark Souls then it will likely be difficult and time consuming. For a veteran of the series who did co-op and got handed the items the difficulty is reduced significantly, suddenly the game is a short platinum.

 

Definitely looking forward to Mein Leben in Wolfenstein II, and if it deserves a sub 1 percent rarity platinum.

[Arcesius]

29 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Trying to 'jimmy' the method, just to ensure the rarity values more accurately reflect something they are not actually purporting to represent - i.e. the difficulty of actually achieving the trophies - is a fools errand in a way, given that, as has been oft repeated, (though, admittedly, even more oft misunderstood!): Difficulty =/= Rarity.

 

I agree with your post entirely, of course. But this right here (what I put in bold) is exactly the problem I have... How exactly do the current computations ensure that the rarity values of DLC trophies are "more accurate"? ? I don't think they succeed in doing so. If anything, they make the current rarities seem pretty arbitrary and meaningless. 

 

 

1 hour ago, HusKy said:

I used to think this would be the best way, but I did some quick math couple months back and I'm not so sure about it. If calculated this way, it would shift rarities down drastically. Many of the paid DLCs would turn into full UR sets. It would open another can of worms and I'm not sure it's worth it at this point.

 

 

Absolutely, they would... But.. wouldn't that actually reflect exactly what those rarities are supposed to? Especially when comparing those rarities with those of the base game..? Precisely that less people bothered to finish the DLC. 

 

Sure, many of those trophies would be extremely rare (like...sub-0.1%), and while I think that is probably a bit riduculous as well, it still carries the meaning it should, instead of seeming entirely fabricated. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Arcesius

[HusKy]

I shouldn't have engaged in this discussion. I find that both systems have their strengths and weaknesses but most importantly, this discussion isn't going to change anything so I'm out. Peace ✌️

[DrBloodmoney]

26 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

 

I agree with your post entirely, of course. But this right here (what I put in bold) is exactly the problem I have... How exactly do the current computations ensure that the rarity values of DLC trophies are "more accurate"?  I don't think they succeed in doing so. If anything, they make the current rarities seem pretty arbitrary and meaningless.

yeah, I agree - I think dlc rarities as they are now are worse than meaningless - they are actively misleading.

 

I’m sure if i delved into the history of my posts, I’d be able to find some really going hard against the system - though probably from before the last change, when, as @AJ_Radio correctly points out:

 

28 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

Some DLCs that had only one trophy in them were automatically 100%. I remember the DLC rarity for Batman: Arkham City in regards to the challenges being absurdly high, and I know they take a lot of work to finish because I went ahead and did all of them in that game.

...but I think where @AJ_Radio and I differ is on how it should be now.

 

I think stats should purely represent the raw data, and I don’t use rarity as a guide to difficulty too often, and not without a good sized pinch of salt - especially dlc rarity. Dishonoured’s Trials of Dunwall dlc and the Arkham City Catwoman/Robin/Nightwing stuff taught me that lesson with a stick and a chair, for sure!

 

I think representing the data with pure, unmassaged bluntness will result in more useful info overall - it’s only by seeing raw, unfettered data that interesting or significant patterns can be found - and at the moment, the stats are being factored through a formula designed to meet a pre-existing hypothesis and end goal, rather than just showing fact, and letting the data drive the end result.

Edited May 6, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Guest]

2 hours ago, HusKy said:

 

I used to think this would be the best way, but I did some quick math couple months back and I'm not so sure about it. If calculated this way, it would shift rarities down drastically. Many of the paid DLCs would turn into full UR sets. It would open another can of worms and I'm not sure it's worth it at this point.

PSN Trophy Leaders "prestige trophies" work that way.

[AJ_Radio]

1 hour ago, HusKy said:

I shouldn't have engaged in this discussion. I find that both systems have their strengths and weaknesses but most importantly, this discussion isn't going to change anything so I'm out. Peace

 

You basically disagreed with @Arcesius's points then, that's another way of putting it. I don't agree with his view on how rarity should be calculated, but the whole debate here is completely stupid.

 

I should of taken the hint when a bunch of people here cried about not wanting to have DLC trophies go against their completion percentage.

 

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I think stats should purely represent the raw data, and I don’t use rarity as a guide to difficulty too often, and not without a good sized pinch of salt - especially dlc rarity. Dishonoured’s Trials of Dunwall dlc and the Arkham City Catwoman/Robin/Nightwing stuff taught me that lesson with a stick and a chair, for sure!

 

I think representing the data with pure, unmassaged bluntness will result in more useful info overall - it’s only by seeing raw, unfettered data that interesting or significant patterns can be found - and at the moment, the stats are being factored through a formula designed to meet a pre-existing hypothesis and end goal, rather than just showing fact, and letting the data drive the end result.

 

Arkham City's DLC takes a lot of work. It's not necessarily difficult as much as it is tedious and annoying, especially the Predator Campaigns which I will wholeheartedly admit, stealth is one of my weakpoints in gaming. I'm going to have a real doozy playing thru Metal Gear Solid 2. Even the absolutely tame stealth sections in Detroit: Become Human made me a little nervous.

 

I have no further point to add to this thread. This is a conversation best fit for us wanting to go into circles, so I'm just going to agree to disagree. You're not wrong here, but as with Arcesius I think this will just complicate the system more than it needs to be. Right now, I'm actually content with how trophy statistics on this website are arranged.

[You]

So erm, going all the way back to the original poster. Maybe that person is just innocent and genuinely confused on how DLC and the system work.

 

Let's say, the OP synced their trophies a while back on a game but hasn't synced in a long while. In which case the game they may have completed will still show 100% on their system, and they perhaps want the site to reflect this despite the fact the unconnected system is showing outdated data. Which would be S in that case.

 

I sometimes don't go online with my PS4 for a week or two as it's the same cable with my desktop PC and it's a pain switching cables. In those cases, Killing Force 2 is always on 100% on my system until I connect to the Internet and then it's down to 98% again.

 

It's also funny to look at this thread sometime later and see that the OP seemingly never even came back to check any of your answers / heated debate. lol.

Edited May 6, 2021 by enaysoft

[LihapullaPoju]

either wait for a sale or just dont buy

 

Ive had a good laugh reading this thread

[starcrunch061]

On 5/3/2021 at 8:46 PM, AyeOfReach said:

No I think this site is populated with devs. I can be sure when my post is gonna get upvoted .. yea you got right it's when I'm gonna praise any game.

 

Nah. I get upvotes all the time, though strangely, they come from people like starcrunch062 and StaRKruncH061.

 

They are absolutely of no relation to me. 

[visvoer18]

ok I wasnt planning on responding here anymore   but I might have an idea for a great compromise altough I doubt it would be ever implantened

 

what if dlc   on the rankings and stuff would be impmenetened as if its another game?

 

since the completion rate is determened with the points rather then trophy ammount  it shouldnt change much if anything for people who actualy owned and completed the dlc

 

ofcourse the idea can be fleshed out way more but this is the basis at least i think this would work ell for whichever side of the argument you are on

[dieselmanchild]

12 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

Now, this is an actual intelligent response. Many of the responses I see here automatically point fingers and say all DLC should be removed and vilified, which is complete bogus.

 

I had this sort of issue with LA Noire. The DLC story cases I felt ultimately played some part in the story arc, but you had to pay money for each one. The PS3 version of the game came with The Consol's Car story DLC, which was at the time exclusive. You were able to buy LA Noire: The Complete Edition on disc, but most people just bought the regular version which left out the DLC story cases. This was the first time where I felt the developers specifically leaving out these story cases so people would pay money for them. Obviously, most people skipped these cases because they didn't want to pay more money than they already did. It was $60 for LA Noire, then another $20 - 30 for the DLC story cases.

 

All of the Saints Row games, Sleeping Dogs and several other games had DLC that immediately felt tacked on. And naturally most people just skipped the DLC. There was a big controversy over DLC back in the late 2000s but because that was so long ago now we've come to practically accept it all without asking second questions. Ubisoft completely relishes in DLC, practically every major AAA game they make and publish you can safely bet will come with DLC. And most of their DLC is utterly tacked on without much effort.

 

In the past you had Expansion Packs. These were additions that greatly enhanced the experience and added many cool and innovative features. Starcraft is a prime example. That wasn't the same as the DLC as we know it today. The business practice has changed. Companies like Ubisoft and 2K Games not only thrive on DLC, they practically opened up in-game marketplaces for you to spend dozens and hundreds of dollars for microtransactions.

Thank you. ?

 

Great example with L.A. Noire. I platinumed L.A. Noire earlier this year and it’s a perfect example of what I was talking about. Like you said, the DLCs are literally nothing more than just a couple extra cases. They’re all single cases which means they’re fairly short (normal mission length of ~45-60 mins on average), take place on the same map (no new areas designed or introduced), and don’t even introduce a new desk or department. They just fit right in to the arson/vice/homicide desks of the base game.
 

There is zero reason why any of those cases couldn’t have been part of the game to begin with, and it really does feel like they simply cherry picked a few cases from the game, held them back, then packaged them as new content and released them separately months later so they could milk an extra $20-30 from each player.

 

In my opinion, a proper DLC would introduce something new. For example, throughout the game and on the radio stations, you hear several mentions of the political tensions and the rising communist threat which helps paint a portrait of the era the game is set in. A simple but interesting idea would be to introduce a whole new desk that is relevant to the story. Maybe you’re tasked with a discreet mission to surveil and identify suspected communists, break up left wing rallies or infiltrate a radical student group on a university or something. There could be a brand new area (ex. University campus) to explore and where you carry out your investigations and conversations etc.

 

Something like that would feel exciting and like they actually put some thought and effort into it, and would likely be well worth paying for. As it stands, the only reason I paid for the L.A. Noire DLCs was so I could 100% the game and earn all the trophies. Otherwise I never would have bothered.

 

L.A. Noire is just an example of one game, but it’s the exact same pattern I see playing out over and over and over again when it comes to DLCs. And it’s why, as a consumer and trophy hunter, I have never liked downloadable content.

[AJ_Radio]

5 hours ago, dieselmanchild said:

Thank you.

 

Great example with L.A. Noire. I platinumed L.A. Noire earlier this year and it’s a perfect example of what I was talking about. Like you said, the DLCs are literally nothing more than just a couple extra cases. They’re all single cases which means they’re fairly short (normal mission length of ~45-60 mins on average), take place on the same map (no new areas designed or introduced), and don’t even introduce a new desk or department. They just fit right in to the arson/vice/homicide desks of the base game.
 

There is zero reason why any of those cases couldn’t have been part of the game to begin with, and it really does feel like they simply cherry picked a few cases from the game, held them back, then packaged them as new content and released them separately months later so they could milk an extra $20-30 from each player.

 

In my opinion, a proper DLC would introduce something new. For example, throughout the game and on the radio stations, you hear several mentions of the political tensions and the rising communist threat which helps paint a portrait of the era the game is set in. A simple but interesting idea would be to introduce a whole new desk that is relevant to the story. Maybe you’re tasked with a discreet mission to surveil and identify suspected communists, break up left wing rallies or infiltrate a radical student group on a university or something. There could be a brand new area (ex. University campus) to explore and where you carry out your investigations and conversations etc.

 

Something like that would feel exciting and like they actually put some thought and effort into it, and would likely be well worth paying for. As it stands, the only reason I paid for the L.A. Noire DLCs was so I could 100% the game and earn all the trophies. Otherwise I never would have bothered.

 

L.A. Noire is just an example of one game, but it’s the exact same pattern I see playing out over and over and over again when it comes to DLCs. And it’s why, as a consumer and trophy hunter, I have never liked downloadable content.

 

LA Noire was probably one of my favorite games that I considered underrated. I actually watched the television show Mad Men because a lot of the actors had a role in LA Noire. Great TV show, and interesting take on 1960s era business.

 

There were some desks Cole was in according to his story but there's only a few mentions in-game probably due to time constraints and limited budget. Team Bondi was actually suffering when they developed LA Noire. Rockstar Games was the publisher, and from what I remember reading they had to step in and help with the project. Team Bondi went out of business shortly after LA Noire released.

 

The PS4 version has some additional trophies but they are merely collectibles. If someone was able to add in brand new trophies and collectibles several years after the game came out, surely they could of added trophies for The Consol's Car DLC.

 

I'd like a spiritual successor of some sort, but since Rockstar is so into shark cards from GTA Online these days, I doubt they'll ever publish another detective game.

 

LA Noire is 10 years old now. It's a pattern that's been around a long time. Yes, there is Blood & Wine from the Witcher 3, there is The Old Hunters from Bloodborne. Those tend to be the exception, rather than the norm, which is to cut a little content from what could of been in the main game and charge additional money for it.

[TrophyChief]

Base trophies and DLC trophies all the way! Support the developers, hunt the trophies (ofter more rarity), experience the game in its entirety, don't lose out on canon (material that is officially part of the story), see that sweet 100% on your profile, have bragging rights, commiserate in the misery discussions with others when DLC trophies are added to base game much later, unexpected, or on-going. 

 

Benefits outweigh the costs.

[dzstrpc]

I don't want unearned trophies to count for my percentage

[Apollo]

100% all for trophies counting. Gives me that extra kick and incentive to strive for as close to a perfect percentage as I can get. 

[ShadyWARcotix]

On 3.5.2021 at 8:46 PM, bosstristan said:

I feel the same.

There's a reason why there's the platinum trophy AND the "100%" check mark. 

First hidden trophies, then trophy stacks, and now they want to have the 100% mark while they only have 90%?

 

What's the next step?

AUTOPOP FOR EVERY GAME BECAUSE I'M THE REAL SHIT WHEN I HAVE THE SAME "Platinum in 10 seconds" GAME 5 TIMES ON MY PROFILE!!!!!!! 

blame Sony not meeeeeee

 

and b2t the best answer here was the mathematical answer because it would'nt make sense to go over 100%

Edited May 7, 2021 by ShadyWARcotix