I don't doubt that Far Cry 4 is going to be fun but I spent a lot of time in Far Cry 3 and I don't want a $60 dlc whenever I have the brilliance of Dragon Age Inquisition.

But it's so much more content than a dlc. I spent 70 +hrs in far cry 3 and I've already spent 28 hrs in far cry 4. I don't do that for dlc content

Explain to me why this isn't dlc. Keep in mind I've been a far cry fan since far cry 2 and I do intend to pick this up (even though it's glorified dlc in my mind). Also keep in mind dlc is not synonymous with bad as many dlc packages were better than the vanilla so please try to be somewhat objective.

Sorry it's long but I guess one of my major points is at the bottom f you won't bother reading the rest

I am trying to be objective here. Now the story is different though it may not be the most original it is different. The character has different ties to the land and the people who inhabit it, and you can also make choices in the story to try to change the development of these characters in your eyes though I haven't finished main story so I don't know if it has any meaningful impact. I enjoy reading and learning about the different animals (which there are plenty of new ones), the locations, the characters, as well as the new letters and the personal diary of your characters father, which are new. Traversing the landscape is completely different, allowing for different tactics to be used because you can't just see everything from a mile off. And the karma objectives are very fun and keep the world alive. They added in more animal and people population so ya never are walking around seeing absolutely nothin in an otherwise perfect game world. Now I agree there are similarities, like an insane boss and a rebellion against the main villain and their group but come on, every damn game is almost a cliche of itself or any other game. But these characters, even more so than the third game make me wanna know more about them. All I see is people talking about is recycled animations, guns, hunting, and outposts etc, but really only game mechanics are mostly the same, besides that they improved on a bunch of them. It IS a completely new set of characters, it IS a completely new environment in a way that impacts the game majorly, and it DOES have even more hours of content than the third one does. Dlc to me ca. Be great like oblivions shivering isles, but it's dlc, which means new area, new characters (in this case) but severely less content. Oblivion =640 hrs, shivering isles 60 hrs, Far cry 3=80 hrs, far cry 4 =35 hours, and I still am only on 30 % completed because of all the side missions, collectibles, and then the story missions. I can't consider it dlc when I spend as much if not more time on it than vanilla version.

I think that your taking my use of DLC too literally especially with comparisons to the amount of content. Yeah I know that Far Cry 4 couldn't be installed into Far Cry 3 because it's ludicrous. The real meaning is just to contrast similarities in the actual gameplay and game mechanics. The biggest thing about your argument that hurts it is that it's all about the setting and the minor refinements. This immediately made me think of the relationship between Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas because it's almost the exact same relationship but even then I would argue that New Vegas changed things up more than Far Cry 4. Another thing that hurts your argument is that the argument can be used in defense of Call of Duty and Assassins Creed which blatantly abuse the mechanics that once made them great. In all honesty Far Cry 4 is probably better than Far Cry 3 and that's because of minor refinements and the fact that this type of game ( a first person open world game) is actually unique and different to everything else on the market. This is why I'm going to give Far Cry a pass but it's a shame that it is filled with busywork (crafting wallets and such) and has the typical Ubisoft open world formula.

Basically I see where you're comin from but I think the root of my disagreement here is I hate how people have gotten into using the phrase "it could have just been dlc" because I do take it literally like you said. Because it is a literal statement that you are making. Now I probably would have not had an issue if you had stuck with your title and were just stating they were lazy because they keep reusing old game mechanics and weapons but dlc in my opinion is just side content, severely less than the base game. Like I think battlefield hard line is a game I'll never wanna play though I like past battlefield games, but I won't say it could've been dlc because I'm sure it has it's own amount of content, new story, characters, and it's own wealth of time to be spent on it with rankings to start over on. Now to be honest my replies aren't really well thought out cuz I'm always sleep deprived when I get on here but I'll admit when I should be more lenient towards understanding your opinion cuz you're right, they recycled old animations and gameplay but I think the brand new story, awesome characters, and much much more fleshed out and better looking world is so much more than dlc. Ubisoft is getting lazy, recycling things that work, but I still will argue it is not, and could not be dlc. I hope I make sense and I'm not some tired rambler. By the way, the new open world co op where you can do all side content with a buddy is amazing. Makes the game worth the 60 dollars plus some.

I can see where your coming from but I've played dlc that was better than the vanilla version and longer than most games. Particularly Borderlands comes to mind because they give 30+ hours of content in just one of the dlc packages there was also Dragon Age Awakening which provided a ton of content as well. Same with goes for pretty much all the dlc packages for Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas. I don't see DLC as synonymous with bad but I do see it as synonymous with lacking innovation and that's why I think it's a fair comparison.

I get it but it just seems our fundamental definition of dlc is different. See the borderlands dlc me and my buddy still played way more on vanilla. Now I would be upset if I bought a 60 dollar game that was shorter than more content I had to pay more money for. So even if I was to look at dlc that could be longer than the base game I would think that was shit no matter how good the dlc was because what the hell, I paid full price for a game, that had less content than what was supposed to be just something extra you spend 15 to 20 dollars on

I'm talking overall dlc for Borderlands not a single package but even then a single package is quite significant and does have more content than vanilla. One of the biggest reasons I don't make a fuss over dlc playtimes compared to vanilla game times is because games time are too diverse but they are all priced at $60 dollars (with few exceptions like Payday 2). Call of Duty has around a 6 hour campaign, 8 multiplayer maps that take 10 min each to play and maybe a zombies or extinction mode which adds maybe 2 hours tops. You can experience everything that game had to offer within 9 hours and 30min give or take and then everything after that essentially just replaying already seen content until a $20 dlc comes out for maybe 4 maps. Now look at Fallout 3/ New Vegas, Skyrim, Dragon Age Origins/, Borderlands 1,2. All of these games have a vanilla length to where you couldn't experience it all even if you stayed up 48 hours straight just playing one of these games and they are all priced at $60. Usually the dlc for these games are $15 ($30 for Dragon Age Awakening which essentially just added in another game rather than a dlc but it was a dlc) for a single package and all of these dlc's( with exception to some minor dlc in Dragon Age like Leliana's song ) add on at least 20+ hours of unique content of unique content and that's more content than Call of Duty just in the dlc which costs less than Call of Duty's dlc and all of them cost less than Call of Duty vanilla. Now just looking at these stats I would be pissed off if I bought Call of Duty, Battlefield (my favorite game franchise btw),Assassins Creed,Gears of War(was my favorite franchise until Judgement),Tomb Raider,Halo(another one of my favorites).......etc. None of these games offer nearly as much content as just one of the dlc packages in the paragraph above(I'm excluding Halo MCC because it's a remaster and essentially 4 games that were sold as singlular units priced at $60 in the past) but does that mean that you can't justify the purchase of any of these games? [spoiler]Don't dismiss the CoD comparison because while I'm tired of CoD and haven't purchased it in years there are so many people out there who do buy it and feel their purchase is justified and also many games offer a similar amount of content. [/spoiler][spoiler]I didn't list Destiny because I'm made about that purchase [/spoiler]

Nah usually if I wanna use a stupid comparison on a games worth I'll say a dollar per hour makes it worth it, but there are games out there that I play less than 60 hrs that are worth it. Like the new wolfenstein for example I've played 30 hrs and spent 60 on it and t was worth it to me. But comparing dlc from call of duty to skyrim or dragon age doesn't work because they are different games. And though each map has 10 minutes of gameplay initially there are people who put hundreds sometimes thousands of hours into call of duty multiplayer on EACH entry in the series. Now there are some dlcs that have more content, some dependent on if you like the dlc content more than vanilla like you said borderlands where as I didn't play the dlc as much as vanilla, but those are just devs that can make dlc actually worth something more than a few maps. Unlike destiny which will be getting a meager amount of content lets be honest. Now I can't think of one game I've preferred to play dlc more than base game because I always get through it so quick. Skyrim a dlc I blasted through, but still I am finishing vanilla because there was so much. Now the only thing we are stuck on is our opinion on dlc and to be honest, neither of us will win each other over based on our opinions :p but hey, nice to have an actual discussion on this forum full of children haha