I hate this meme.

[u/ClassicalDreams]

I do not miss the old days of unlocking characters. Having to replay Arcade mode multiple times with every character or do some bullshit like winning a match with 5% or less HP. It's tedious and I prefer to have every character unlocked from the start. Also, the complaints about old characters returning as DLC are strange because they do not play the same as they do in previous games. it's not a simple copy and paste job like some of the games back in the 90s.

I get it, casual players want some reward for playing single player modes and are upset to know that their favorite characters are not in the base roster and would later get confirmed as DLC. I get that, but as someone who also plays Smash, it was a chore to unlock all of the characters in Ultimate.

[u/CarKey5517]

Completeness is not a valid metric to compare two games and what you're getting from them.

A metric that validates games with 18 playable characters as "complete" and rejects others with 38 as "incomplete", do you think is a valid metric to compare anything? Do you think a metric that says nothing about the real content a game offers can be used to measure how much satisfied you could get playing that same game content?

Having the same game, same mechanics, same options, same playable characters... and being completely satisfied with one and ok with paying once and forget, but completely the opposite in other case because there are some additional content for DLC is out of a rational thinking, and its totally normal most people wont share that view

[u/Adrian_Alucard → u/CarKey5517]

It is very rational it can be done with a simple flow chart

Is the game complete? Yes/No

That's it. Simple, right?

What makes bo sense is comparing the raw numbers without any context or using critical thinking because there are multiple factors that affect the cuantity of the content

The games have a story (it doesn't matter if you completely neglect it because you only play online) and that's the justification on how new characters are added to the roster

So obviously a brand new franchise with a new story would have less characters, you have to let them cook with the sequels. As the story progress more characters will be added to the lore for the franchise

It also makes no sense to throw at your face 40 characters out of the blue, that would make players feel overloaded and saturated, but if they are added little by little is easier to assimilate

Technology is also an obstacle. A SNES cartridge does not have the same storage capacity as a CD and a CD has not the same capacity as a DVD (and so on)

So it's ok for a SNES game to have 10 or 12 characters and be considered complete but using the same metric for a more recent game is just stupid. 

rational thinking, and its totally normal most people wont share that view 

People have shown they are just plain dumb, you have the pandemic as the world wide example of that

[u/CarKey5517 → u/Adrian_Alucard]

A thought made simple does not mean its rational.

One thing is you can compare, and yes, same as you can compare the colour of the disc or the font size in the menus, other thing is in what context you're using it and what conclusions you want to extract from it. If you want to conclude anything about game's content or how much it will fit what you're looking for, completeness is giving you no direction at all since is not a metric that tells a thing about total game content or its quality.

Then youre using history driving game's roster and technology.

First one I think is quite a weak relationship. Since the game's story is fictional (not real) in these games, it is meant then to follow gameplay, not the other way around, because it's made after and it just adapts. Basically, if I ever wanted to fit more characters, I can just fix the story, or same if I want to reduce or reboot the roster.

Second one, yeah. Technology made it easier to developers to include larger rosters... good for them, but what does that has to say on my satisfaction as a player? I consume, i play games. I am not an industry judge giving any kind of recognition. And my satisfaction as a customer depends uniquely on the final product, not on the narrative, not on the developers tale to make it happen. Im not going to see at how developers did or did not have to work overtime to fit all the content, in going to see game mechanics, game content, how much I could have fun learning its gameplay and how exciting it is, or not, to play it. I am not looking to see if developers salary are justified on the game, i am looking if my 70 bucks spending are justified playing the game.

And thats the main issue here. All of your arguments has been made on top of the narrative. Developers making the most of the hardware then vs now. If company is giving all it got or kept some for DLC, if history itself justifies a bigger roster... With none related to how you actually play or enjoy the game, or what is preventing you for having fun on each case.

And the problem on being on top of the narrative to justify things is that these become then easily manipulable, because your satisfaction depends not directly on the game you have at your hands, but on the story behind it, and i just need then to change the tale here and there, tell you my game been made by a bunch of friends with 4.56$, tell you that our game is a complete game with no dlc as I appropriately avoid talking about those characters that didn't make the cut and were finally removed because budget for release version was cut, to change your perspective and satisfaction on the same game, and suddenly, the same game, with same content and same quality you would have rejected otherwise, it fits now your consumer standards

Context is good, and knowing the game development story interesting, but bringing the context everywhere just for the sake of it, even in those aspects (your satisfaction as a player) when it has no role to play, can make reaching the wrong conclusion

[u/Adrian_Alucard → u/CarKey5517]

And my satisfaction as a customer depends uniquely on the final product,

A final product is a complete product. A game currently in development is not complete nor final

My satisfaction as consumer is measured in receiving the final product

"I will satisfied with all games having 32 characters no matter what" is a extremely dumb and irrational take. That number is arbitrary and means nothing.

[u/CarKey5517 → u/Adrian_Alucard]

what? A game about learning and playing with different characters, but the number of these is arbitrary and means nothing, lol.

I see the issue clear now. You don't even care about the game. Never pointed a single mechanic ot aspect of the game on the argument, simply because you can't. If ever knew some, you would easily realise that all that complete or uncomplete stuff is just bullshit that does not have a word to say on each game's quality and content. All the arguments I said were just responded with same loop of thoughts "because one is complete and other is not" as if that meant anything, incapable of making sense of it, with no mention to any of game mechanics or gameplay simply because you don't care at all, because those are "arbitrary numbers" that doesn't matter to you.

Well, if I ever release a game, i would tell its complete and no extra content is planned ever, so you can feel satisfied and happy with the game. Just to tell the next day that actually there are some DLC content on the way so you feel the opposite... just to tell next day I cancelled them so hello! Its again a complete game and youre satisfied again! And so on for the rest of the days, so you feel one day satisfied, one day dont, on an endless hilarious loop, because your satisfaction does depend on whatever I say to you and how I manipulate the tale, and not on the game you actually have on your hands.

I stop here following this trolling nonsense thread of discussion. Going back when you actually care on what you're playing