flight50 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2019 04:13The issue with remaking California is that it takes away an entire year of developing another dlc for the future. I'd rather them replace the bad area and keep it moving for now.
I think I am going to have to completely disagree with this one.
Sure, dedicating the team to further expansions and simply patching up major trouble spots in old areas sounds great on paper. However, keep in mind that the vast majority of the playerbase is base-game only (no DLC). Not to mention new players are likely to start out with only base-game (or maybe just California in the free trial). When they start and are greeted by the outdated ugly mess that is most of California and Nevada, especially with the noticeable difference between it and the few updated regions, what kind of image does that paint for them in regards to the potential of the DLC?
If you hear of this great game a friend of yours plays and the wonderous amount of content that can be had in DLC, how would you feel when you buy (or try) it only to find ugly "playstation 2" style graphics? Would you even be bothered to continue to explore the gameplay or let alone the DLC?
I understand that graphics are not the most important part of a game, but they make up the vast majority of first-impression impact, which carries significant weight in the decision to continue to invest in a game (or keep it, given Steams full-refund return policy).
Long story short: while a complete rebuild of California, Nevada (and maybe) Arizona would take a long time which may cause delays to future DLC, it would definitely to the job of getting the base map up to par, which would provide a massive improvement to the first-impression on new players as well as renew the interest of old players. This would also have a significant impact on DLC sales in the future.