As an illustration, grab an endgame save from 1.0 and open it up in a modern version of the game. The moment you step out of the door, you will be greeted with a series of cutscenes/dialogs explaining several of the various game mechanics that were added in the versions since 1.0. These are game mechanics that, if they had been part of the game from the start, would have greatly altered how one would have chosen to play and reach endgame. One may have prioritized different crops, events, upgrades, relationships, decorations, etc.

Stardew Valley is absolutely worth the money, and the content updates definitely make it even more of a bargain. But calling the transition from 1.0 to 1.6+ "minor adjustments to gameplay" is disingenuous.

I just miss the days when games were already finished upon release.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The point folks are making is that Stardew was finished on release, it's just that the developer has the passion and financial ability to continue to improve it.

If it was 1994, maybe the game would have been released on a cartridge and never changed for myriad reasons (publishing rights, being on physical media, etc).

Example: Super Metroid was one of the best games ever made, and was complete when it was released, but you better believe I'd take free updates that further improve on it. There's always improvements to make, because nothing can really be perfect. Those hypothetical updates wouldn't retroactively make it an incomplete game. Maybe it's too a subtle philosophical point

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 points 1 month ago

As another example, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the best game ever made, in my opinion. But there's a laughable amount of glitches in it and speedrunners can easily tear the game apart. So it's not perfect. It's also old and the graphics are dated. If it were somehow still supported today, there would be a high-resolution texture pack released, no doubt about it...