PDA

View Full Version : My view on DLCs



slick_101
08-01-2012, 08:48 PM
For me. DLCs are probably the biggest gripe of modern gaming. Well I say modern. Rather in the last 5 years or so. Let me explain what I mean. To me it feels as if when you buy a game, you aren't actually buying a full product; you're buying a product about 80% done ( Fallout 3 springs to mind straight away). or in some cases you're spending £10 on a few maps *cough * CoD *cough cough* and it just doesn't seem right. Now don't get me wrong here, I know some of you will say "but expansion packs have been around for ages!" Yeah. that's the thing EXPANSION PACKS! Take for instance Red alert 2. you have an entire game with a whole story line to play around with. With the release of Red alert 2: Yuri's revenge you get not only an entire new faction, new maps, new story line and new units for both the Allied and the Soviet. the same could be said about Age of mythology (by the creators of Age of Empires). Even Call of Duty 4 (when it felt like Activision were the good guys) gave away the maps for free on the PC.

So then I look at the games post 2009 and they are all filled with DLC content, though might not be expensive (say £5 or something) it feels as if you are missing out if you don't have that special player skin everybody is talking about.

Another issue is when the developers say they would of added the content/put it on the disk but they didn't have time to implement it or it wasn't finished in time to be put on the disk.... And then they charge for it.

(And yes for the references to the games above I did look at my game shelf of which ones I have been playing recently)

Grizzly
08-01-2012, 09:03 PM
But if I say, look at Fallout New Vegas, those are four expansion packs right there. DLC allows people to continue working and producing content for a game with much more 'focused' planning then Expansion packs did. (Since with an expansion pack, its like "We have to include all this content or people will smash it!", not so with DLC).

Also... it has been going on a bit longer then you think. I think BF2 also had some DLC packs already.

sabrage
08-01-2012, 09:11 PM
When they start pricing it relative to its value, I'll start buying it. Usually I just wait for the GOTY or Complete pack though.

Snargelfargen
08-01-2012, 09:19 PM
When they start pricing it relative to its value, I'll start buying it. Usually I just wait for the GOTY or Complete pack though.

Agreed. At the moment DLC operates as an incentive not to buy a game at release.

It's strange thinking back to when DLC was an exciting concept. Continued support and new content for a game sounds great, but it comes at a high price, and sometimes the DLC is ripped right out of the game's original content.

slick_101
08-01-2012, 09:29 PM
Also... it has been going on a bit longer then you think. I think BF2 also had some DLC packs already.
yeah, there was armoured fury but that was after 2 expansion packs (special ops and Euro force)

Althea
08-01-2012, 09:36 PM
Why does Fallout 3 spring to mind? You have 5 high quality packs for a low price with a LOT of content. New Vegas is 4 packs with a similar price-to-content ratio. Your FO3 and New Vegas experiences are no less complete without the DLC, but they enhance various aspects of the fringe lore/story - even Broken Steel for FO3 really doesn't do all that much for the main story beyond 'fix' the ending - and even then I presume it can be 'fixed' via mods. And generally, Bethesda seem to not work on DLC until after the game has gone gold - They'll plan for it and so on, but it's a post-launch thing.

GTA IV from Rockstar did the same - TLaD and TBoGT added to the experience, but in separate ways. They all intertwine in a way I felt rather clever of Rockstar, and unlike some DLC they didn't affect the main game at all.

DLC is great if it's done right - Item packs, cosmetic items, story additions - and they can enhance or compliment your game experience. But if it's done wrong, it can leave you sour or perhaps even 'ruin' the game. DLC needs to come with management tools (Bethesda have these for the PC via the Data Files option) to allow you to enable/disable it, and it also needs to seamlessly integrate itself if possible.

Wizardry
08-01-2012, 09:48 PM
Why does Fallout 3 spring to mind? You have 5 high quality packs for a low price with a LOT of content. New Vegas is 4 packs with a similar price-to-content ratio. Your FO3 and New Vegas experiences are no less complete without the DLC, but they enhance various aspects of the fringe lore/story - even Broken Steel for FO3 really doesn't do all that much for the main story beyond 'fix' the ending - and even then I presume it can be 'fixed' via mods.
Mothership Zeta enhances the lore?

Althea
08-01-2012, 10:01 PM
Mothership Zeta enhances the lore?
I never got that complaint. FO1 and, especially, FO2 had rather bizarre moments like aliens and so on, so I don't get the hate for MSZ. Yeah, it wasn't particularly great, but your NPCs gave some little hints about parts of the Wasteland or even pre-Great War.

Was it FO3's finest moment and Bethesda's wisest choice? No, I don't think it was, but taken as an experience? I think it outshone a lot of DLC, and the gear you got was fairly useful depending on what you'd done before that point.

SMiD
08-01-2012, 10:15 PM
Mothership Zeta enhances the lore?

Ha! I was thinking the same thing. +rep

archonsod
08-01-2012, 10:15 PM
To me it feels as if when you buy a game, you aren't actually buying a full product; you're buying a product about 80% done

Which is stupid. You're in no position to determine whether a game is done or not, any more than you can determine whether a book is finished or a movie complete. It's also the aim of marketing DLC - they do the same thing with consumer electronics, cars and similar.


Take for instance Red alert 2. you have an entire game with a whole story line to play around with. With the release of Red alert 2: Yuri's revenge you get not only an entire new faction, new maps, new story line and new units for both the Allied and the Soviet.

But what if I only play skirmish, and don't need or want a new campaign? What if I don't like the third faction? The problem with expansion packs is it's all or nothing, at least with DLC you can choose which additions you want exactly, and it's usually cheaper than an expansion pack would be. To reverse the example, if all I wanted was some extra maps and units for multiplayer mode Yuri's Revenge is a rip off, justified solely on the basis it includes a campaign I'll never play and a faction I have no interest in.


Another issue is when the developers say they would of added the content/put it on the disk but they didn't have time to implement it or it wasn't finished in time to be put on the disk.... And then they charge for it.

Don't really see why that's an issue. After all, they're not obligated to give you the content, and unless you happen to live within walking distance of their house and are happy to loan them a USB stick distributing said content isn't free. Would you prefer it if they said they didn't have time to put the content on the disk, so you're not getting it?

gwathdring
08-01-2012, 10:28 PM
Why does Fallout 3 spring to mind? You have 5 high quality packs for a low price with a LOT of content. New Vegas is 4 packs with a similar price-to-content ratio. Your FO3 and New Vegas experiences are no less complete without the DLC, but they enhance various aspects of the fringe lore/story - even Broken Steel for FO3 really doesn't do all that much for the main story beyond 'fix' the ending - and even then I presume it can be 'fixed' via mods. And generally, Bethesda seem to not work on DLC until after the game has gone gold - They'll plan for it and so on, but it's a post-launch thing.

The memorable part of Fallout 3 for me? Operation Anchorage. Hands down. Still, your main point stands. Fallout 3 wasn't handicapped by the DLC development process as far as I can tell. Elements of certain DLC just happened to outshine the main product.

Heliocentric
08-01-2012, 10:33 PM
I paid £1 pound for Magicka: The Stars Are Left
It is crazy fun, I've got my money's worth out of it already and I've got though little of its contents.
DLC that lack that kind of value for money is a great way for a fan to get more of a game they admire. For example traps and maps in sanctum=ace. Much dlc is just to make money with little value, but so are many games.

gwathdring
08-01-2012, 10:35 PM
Don't really see why that's an issue. After all, they're not obligated to give you the content, and unless you happen to live within walking distance of their house and are happy to loan them a USB stick distributing said content isn't free. Would you prefer it if they said they didn't have time to put the content on the disk, so you're not getting it?

Agreed. :)

Althea
08-01-2012, 10:48 PM
The memorable part of Fallout 3 for me? Operation Anchorage. Hands down. Still, your main point stands. Fallout 3 wasn't handicapped by the DLC development process as far as I can tell. Elements of certain DLC just happened to outshine the main product.
Yeah, pretty much. I think the same went for New Vegas - They certainly added to the game, but I think you could easily play without them. The Courier's Stash pack for NV does disrupt the balance a little, but only at the start and I'd say it actually enhances the experience if you're rolling melée or explosives as it dampens the difficulty curve a little.

I also hate that "but the DLC is on the disc!" argument. I think there's times when it's acceptable to be annoyed, but largely? No, I don't think so. When you get a Magicka patch after the DLC releases, do you not have it on your PC? Should Arrowhead give it to you for free? No, I don't think so. DLC on the disc (or in patches) is a great way to ensure balance and to stop the community being divided. With BioShock 2 it was on the disc so that people with the Sinclair whatsit pack could play with those who don't and vice versa - it allows the community to be united. With Magicka, it allows a group to play that pack or see those costumes/items even if they don't own it, and that means the cost of entry is lower. Someone could buy the game for £2 on offer and join in with their friends on the latest pack, and perhaps even go and buy it later. If that system isn't used, you end up with something like Fable 3's system where if you want to play co-op properly, you need to download some free packs of DLC that give you the files so that you can play with those who have it - you don't get it for your character, though. That's a poor system, it's cumbersome and ridiculous in my opinion.

And when you think about it, five or ten years ago, didn't we have to enter codes in-game to unlock "exclusive" content? Maps, costumes et al? That seems a little bit more ridiculous, does it not?

FuriKuri!
08-01-2012, 11:06 PM
My main complaint is a lot of DLC is just awkwardly crowbarred into the main campaign. The main campaign I probably completed 6 months ago and deleted all the saves for. At the very least you're forced to replay the opening segment of the game which I sometimes have no interest in doing. The 'expansion pack' paradigm, if you will, usually (but not always) let you play that out of the context of the main game. Even when they didn't they usually dovetailed onto the end in a manner which 'fit' better, e.g. Diablo 2 - starting the expansion act without an existing character would've been problematical in terms of balance. There are often balance issues in DLCs as they're sometimes just in the gameworld and its up to the player to decide whether to go there near the start of the game or near the end - which can make stuff sometimes too easy/too difficult.

Best example is Fallout 3 for me - I bought the game at release, played it, finished it but didn't really have a strong desire to go through the campaign again. I later bought the edition with all the DLC included but have never got around to reinstalling it to do the DLC since (as far as I'm aware) it's all integrated with the main campaign. Lesson learned, I don't buy that sort of DLC any more unless I have a strong desire to play through the entire game again.

I can appreciate the argument against the 'all or nothing' nature of expansions but I much prefer that method of deployment.

Althea
08-01-2012, 11:13 PM
Best example is Fallout 3 for me - I bought the game at release, played it, finished it but didn't really have a strong desire to go through the campaign again. I later bought the edition with all the DLC included but have never got around to reinstalling it to do the DLC since (as far as I'm aware) it's all integrated with the main campaign. Lesson learned, I don't buy that sort of DLC any more unless I have a strong desire to play through the entire game again.
What do you mean "integrated with the main campaign"? Broken Steel is the only one you need to play through the main game for, whereas the other four can be attempted at any time - but "mid level" is recommended, with Point Lookout really needing a fairly well-developed character as it's fairly hard.

FuriKuri!
08-01-2012, 11:16 PM
Does 'any time' mean as soon as I'm in the game menu or after I've played and left the vault again? I honestly don't know but wasting even 1/2 hour doing that boring expositional junk again is a tall order when I've still got New Vegas on my drive unplayed! If I can dive straight in I may give it a go...

DigitalSignalX
08-01-2012, 11:20 PM
I like expansion type DLC ala FO3/FO:Vegas etc, where you get several hours or more of game play and some expanded items etc for the main campaign, all for 5 or 10 dollars.

In the vein of some of the previous comments though, I don't like DLC that feels distinctly like it was ripped from the game and then sold separately. Catwoman in AC is a recent example. Further back there's Shale in DA:O, not to mention the Wardens keep which places an NPC in the game asking the player to buy DLC for christs sake.

I don't mind nickel and dime type addons for clothes, skins, or certain weapons. But when it's actual play time at stake, I wish developers would respect their customers a little bit more at launch by not offering day 1 expansions.

archonsod
08-01-2012, 11:21 PM
My main complaint is a lot of DLC is just awkwardly crowbarred into the main campaign.

That's down to the nature of the game more than DLC in general though. The same also applies to expansion packs; you'd have had the same issue with the DII expansion if you'd completed the original game and deleted your saves before the release of the expansion (at least assuming you didn't want to play through the original campaign again). The same thing is less of a problem in less structured games - it'd be rather odd for a Civ expansion that didn't alter the original game rather than add on to the end for example.


Best example is Fallout 3 for me - I bought the game at release, played it, finished it but didn't really have a strong desire to go through the campaign again. I later bought the edition with all the DLC included but have never got around to reinstalling it to do the DLC since (as far as I'm aware) it's all integrated with the main campaign. Lesson learned, I don't buy that sort of DLC any more unless I have a strong desire to play through the entire game again.

You don't have to play through the entire game again. It's the same as the expansions for Morrowind et al were - when you install it you'll get a note / message / new radio station which will direct you to a specific point at which you can embark on the DLC whether you've finished the campaign, are half way through or starting a new game (level recommendations permitting of course).
The real problem there though is you not wanting to play through the game again. Surely the idea, whether it's DLC or an expansion, is that it's aimed at people who enjoy playing the game and therefore want more content? If you don't particularly want to play any more Fallout 3 then buying more is a little bit odd.
Of course the expandalone tries to get around that, but then those lead to another argument entirely.

FuriKuri!
08-01-2012, 11:29 PM
It's not odd, I spent a lot of time combing through Fallout 3 and I got everything out of it I could. I enoyed it thoroughly but at the end of it all I was 'done' with it. I want a new experience in the Fallout 3 universe, but not playing through the exact same stuff again just to earn the right to.

Like, I enjoyed the soup for starter but that doesn't mean I want it for main and dessert too (make up your own tortured analogy here, it's fun!).

And to repeat, I did learn from my mistake - I don't buy (this type of) DLC any more unless I'm really, positively, 100% sure I'm going to play through the game again.

archonsod
08-01-2012, 11:32 PM
In the vein of some of the previous comments though, I don't like DLC that feels distinctly like it was ripped from the game and then sold separately. Catwoman in AC is a recent example. Further back there's Shale in DA:O, not to mention the Wardens keep which places an NPC in the game asking the player to buy DLC for christs sake.

I don't mind nickel and dime type addons for clothes, skins, or certain weapons. But when it's actual play time at stake, I wish developers would respect their customers a little bit more at launch by not offering day 1 expansions.

Really depends on what they're doing. I mean Shale was given away free with new copies, so depending on your level of cynicism it was either content which required more time to finish up, a method of getting you to register with the online aspect so they could sell you more stuff or an attempt to curb piracy / second hand sales.
The real problem with something like Shale is that it's integrated into the main game. I've no problem with them ripping out content and DLC'ing it if it's not quite so integral, focusing on say a specific element in more depth or simply extending a certain element of the game. Warden's Keep falls into that area - the quest itself is nothing more than a simple dungeon crawl which is pretty much divorced from the main plot and doesn't really add anything new; I can see the appeal for players who like the dungeon crawl / combat heavy stuff, but if you don't fit into that player niche it's nothing more than padding (and I suspect they'd pushed that as far as they could get away with already via the Deep Roads in the original game).

deano2099
08-01-2012, 11:32 PM
When they start pricing it relative to its value, I'll start buying it.

What is the value though? People always compare it to the base game, as in "the main game is 40 hours for $40, why would I spend $10 on 3 hours more content?"

The answer to that, of course, is "Okay, why not buy a second copy of the game and play through it all again then?"

If you're looking at the game before playing or even purchasing it, yes, the DLC is a rip-off, as the base game is much better value. But once you've played through that base game, the value of it to you is now much reduced as you've already played it once. In that case, the premium price of DLC may well be worth it if you really want a few more new bits.

I also have the same objections as most people to DLC that has literally been stripped out of the game to be sold back at a later date. But this is far, far rarer than most people seem to think.

archonsod
08-01-2012, 11:38 PM
It's not odd, I spent a lot of time combing through Fallout 3 and I got everything out of it I could. I enoyed it thoroughly but at the end of it all I was 'done' with it. I want a new experience in the Fallout 3 universe, but not playing through the exact same stuff again just to earn the right to.

Like, I enjoyed the soup for starter but that doesn't mean I want it for main and dessert too (make up your own tortured analogy here, it's fun!).

But that's exactly what it is - soup for every course. The DLC is largely nothing but "more of the same", you don't get a 'new' experience in the FO3 universe, you simply get more FO3. Again though, it's something more specific to FO3's DLC rather than applicable to DLC in general; there's nothing preventing DLC which fundamentally or radically changes gameplay to offer a different experience (and indeed some games do have it), in this case however Bethesda opted to add a bunch more sidequests and a couple of new areas rather than alter how the game played.
Although again, same thing can be applied to the old expansion method. You had those which simply added additional levels (The Deeper Dungeons for Dungeon Keeper for example) or the like, and others which changed how the base game played out (any of the Civ expansions). And others which sit between the two (the already mentioned Yuri's Revenge).

Heister
08-01-2012, 11:49 PM
From Map Packs to Hats - Money For Nothing or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love being Milked (Not just by Valve) - www.λwevebeenmilkedλ.com (http://www.wevebeenmilked.com) It doesn't exist but it should.

sabrage
08-01-2012, 11:50 PM
And when you think about it, five or ten years ago, didn't we have to enter codes in-game to unlock "exclusive" content? Maps, costumes et al? That seems a little bit more ridiculous, does it not?
My, how the times have changed.


What is the value though? People always compare it to the base game, as in "the main game is 40 hours for $40, why would I spend $10 on 3 hours more content?"
Charging $15 for map packs that were already rendered for previous games isn't just ridiculous, it's sickening.



The answer to that, of course, is "Okay, why not buy a second copy of the game and play through it all again then?"

Of... Course... I guess your argument makes sense when applied to the type of person who buys three or four games a year, and only plays those until they've exhausted them. Me, I like variety, and when I'm done with a game I like to be done.

Nalano
09-01-2012, 12:47 AM
I never got that complaint. FO1 and, especially, FO2 had rather bizarre moments like aliens and so on, so I don't get the hate for MSZ.

The downed saucer and alien blaster were easter eggs in FO1 and FO2. FO3's MSZ turned it into lore. It's the difference between an in-joke and a spinoff.

deano2099
09-01-2012, 12:50 AM
Of... Course... I guess your argument makes sense when applied to the type of person who buys three or four games a year, and only plays those until they've exhausted them. Me, I like variety, and when I'm done with a game I like to be done.

Which is fine. If you're concerned about value, it's almost always better value to buy a whole new game than buy DLC. The DLC is there for people that really like the game and are willing to pay a premium for a bit more of that game rather than buying a new one at a better price.

There's a misguided belief that goes around the internet that DLC is meant to be for everyone. It's not. No DLC will ever sell to everyone who bought the game. As you say, you play and move on. That's what the majority of people do. But there's nothing wrong with selling some extra bits and pieces to people that really want to play some more. And of course it's going to cost more as it will only sell a fraction of the number of copies.

[Sidenote: I'd actually imagine that most DLC is under-priced in terms of cost / content / sales figures - in other words, that DLC that costs 3x as much per hour as the base game is likely selling to 10% of customers, not 33%].

Scumbag
09-01-2012, 01:04 AM
DLC on the disc (or in patches) is a great way to ensure balance and to stop the community being divided. With BioShock 2 it was on the disc so that people with the Sinclair whatsit pack could play with those who don't and vice versa - it allows the community to be united.

Makes me think of the only DLC that I dont like in any way shape or form: DLC that actually divides the community into Haves and Have-Nots with map packs or weapon packs etc... in PvP multiplayer environments which have a pay-to-win or a simple "You will not pass this point" blockage splitting people appart. Call of Duty may get away with it, but then again they could possibly do whatever they want and some-people would buy it.

spcd
09-01-2012, 01:51 AM
I hate preorder content: For example Rage. You do not get the super shotgun in an id software game if you didn't pre order. The super shotgun was my favourite weapon in Doom and Quake. But now you can't have it if you buy Rage today.

Preordering is like gambling. You don't know if the game is bad. Because right now they don't release demos, reviewers don't get a review copy until after release or they aren't allowed to write a bad review. They want to rip off people using hype.

Preorder bonuses put people in a position where they get an inferior product if they buy the game after release. Because the pirated version of Rage has more content. Those people usually wait for a GOTY edition that contains everything.

Now DLC it works the same, depending how soon the DLC comes.

DLC for single player games: When you finish the game, you can buy more adventures. And that's OK. But it sucks if there is day 1 DLC with extra side missions for example. It puts you in a position where the full games feels incomplete. You can't really decide if you should buy the DLC because you don't know if the game is actually any good. I end up not buying the game in the end because it's better to buy the GOTY for a few euros after 1 year anyway.

For multiplayer games it depends. DLC for multiplayer games should not come to soon. The problem is, if I see a game I am interested in on Steam, and I see there are multiple DLC packages that affect multiplayer I don't buy it.

DLC divides communities and should only be released after some time.

zookeeper
09-01-2012, 01:56 AM
At the moment DLC operates as an incentive not to buy a game at release.


This x1000. Goatees for the win.

And, as mentioned, the use of DLC as a preorder incentive is frustrating because I'm never going to preorder anything, ever.

BenWah
09-01-2012, 02:13 AM
i think my natural inclination is to be against DLC, but some of the DLCs I've gotten have been so great I'm just so glad they were made. So I guess I'm a convert to DLC, just pay attention to forums to see which ones suck

FuriKuri!
09-01-2012, 09:51 AM
But that's exactly what it is - soup for every course. The DLC is largely nothing but "more of the same", you don't get a 'new' experience in the FO3 universe, you simply get more FO3. Again though, it's something more specific to FO3's DLC rather than applicable to DLC in general; there's nothing preventing DLC which fundamentally or radically changes gameplay to offer a different experience...

It's not that I don't want the same gameplay (+/- a few new weapons). It's not that I expect the gameplay to radically change. I just want to do a few new quests (which are 'new experiences' regardless of how familiar they may play) without having to muck about in the main campaign.

And yes, expansions did run the full gamut from 'glorified map pack' to 'pretty much a game in its own right' but I always preferred that the structure was generally that these could be enjoyed in isolation.

The most egregious example of what I'm trying to identify is World in Conflict when it was later expanded - if you want to play the Russian side of the campaign that was added you have to play through (hours) of the US one, regardless of how many times you may have completed it in the past.

Althea
09-01-2012, 10:15 AM
Really depends on what they're doing. I mean Shale was given away free with new copies, so depending on your level of cynicism it was either content which required more time to finish up, a method of getting you to register with the online aspect so they could sell you more stuff or an attempt to curb piracy / second hand sales.
The real problem with something like Shale is that it's integrated into the main game. I've no problem with them ripping out content and DLC'ing it if it's not quite so integral, focusing on say a specific element in more depth or simply extending a certain element of the game. Warden's Keep falls into that area - the quest itself is nothing more than a simple dungeon crawl which is pretty much divorced from the main plot and doesn't really add anything new; I can see the appeal for players who like the dungeon crawl / combat heavy stuff, but if you don't fit into that player niche it's nothing more than padding (and I suspect they'd pushed that as far as they could get away with already via the Deep Roads in the original game).
Actually, you've forgotten why Warden's Keep is problematic. It comes with a storage chest (and some pretty good armour as an aside), and that's one of the only places you can reliably store things. It's a pretty essential gameplay feature, and BioWare sold it as DLC rather than doing the right thing and patching it in. On top of that, if you hadn't bought the DLC, there was a constant reminder in the form of an NPC in your camp.

Shale was fine, as she was Project Ten-Dollar (like ME2's Cerberus Network, which was arguably better), and she integrated well into the game. You didn't exactly miss out by not having her, but she did work very well with the base game.

metalangel
09-01-2012, 11:01 AM
Bioware desperately claimed they weren't out to cheat anyone ("bilk" being the term they used) by making the storage chest a DLC. Of course not!

Kadayi
09-01-2012, 03:12 PM
A lot depends on implementation. I don't subscribe to 'all DLC = cut content' school of thought, however if it's going to be in there it needs to be both discreet and well integrated. Albeit I enjoy Biowares games their DLC approach (if not the content itself) tends to blow at times. Although it wasn't storyline content the 'you bought DA:O so here have a DA:O suit for ME2' which has no removable helmet for the cut scenes is a fine example of face palm implementation. Similarly the whole exiled Prince DLC for DA2. I didn't buy this as there were plenty of characters for me to choose from as was, however I found it grating that equipment and weapons specific to the missing character were still in game.

Althea
09-01-2012, 04:34 PM
'you bought DA:O so here have a DA:O suit for ME2' which has no removable helmet for the cut scenes is a fine example of face palm implementation
That was a massive design flaw in ME2. All of the non-N7 armour sets have non-removeable helmets - Inferno, Terminus, Cerberus, Collector, Blood Dragon (DA:O set).

Smashbox
09-01-2012, 04:36 PM
That reminds me of the DLC for Dragon Age: Origins. I played the base game after all the content had been released (on console no less, stupid, I know.), so I can't speak to how it was originally presented, but I remember running into a fellow in the camp who suggested what sounded like an interesting quest, only to be shuttled to a purchase plea for the DLC which would let me play the mission I'd just accepted. Quite aggravating and certainly immersion-breaking.

Althea
09-01-2012, 04:37 PM
That reminds me of the DLC for Dragon Age: Origins. I played the base game after all the content had been released (on console no less, stupid, I know.), so I can't speak to how it was originally presented, but I remember running into a fellow in the camp who suggested what sounded like an interesting quest, only to be shuttled to a purchase plea for the DLC which would let me play the mission I'd just accepted. Quite aggravating and certainly immersion-breaking.
He was there from release. Warden's Keep was Day 0/1 DLC.

Heliocentric
09-01-2012, 04:47 PM
That was a massive design flaw in ME2. All of the non-N7 armour sets have non-removeable helmets - Inferno, Terminus, Cerberus, Collector, Blood Dragon (DA:O set).

The cerberus set had a nice robocop chin/mouth slot, shame it was crap armour in game mechanics..
I should add that I own every piece of adventure DLC bioware popped out (except arrival which I'll be buying soon) since... Well ever. 'Why? ' you scream in my face spraying me with phlem and mucus. Because my fiancée is a bioware fangirl and I do what I'm told.

Wizardry
09-01-2012, 06:52 PM
Actually, you've forgotten why Warden's Keep is problematic. It comes with a storage chest (and some pretty good armour as an aside), and that's one of the only places you can reliably store things. It's a pretty essential gameplay feature, and BioWare sold it as DLC rather than doing the right thing and patching it in. On top of that, if you hadn't bought the DLC, there was a constant reminder in the form of an NPC in your camp.
The flaw was that chests weren't chests in Dragon Age: Origins. In Baldur's Gate, for example, chests were things you could repeatedly interact with. You could take items out of them just as you could put items into them. You could leave items in any random chest, leave the zone, come back 10 days later and retrieve them all. Dragon Age: Origins had this terrible streamlined design where chests were merely item collection points.

The whole issue of storage chests and whether they should be in the standard game or in the DLC is irrelevant because the concept of having one way chests is stupid in the first place.

Anthile
09-01-2012, 06:58 PM
Various RPGs taught me the harsh lesson to never store stuff in containers that don't explicitly belong to me.

Grizzly
09-01-2012, 06:59 PM
What do you mean "integrated with the main campaign"? Broken Steel is the only one you need to play through the main game for, whereas the other four can be attempted at any time - but "mid level" is recommended, with Point Lookout really needing a fairly well-developed character as it's fairly hard.

The problem is that the Fallout DLCS are not well implemented into the campaign at all. You basically get tons of pop up messages when you leave the starting area, and have 4 extra radio broadcasts (I understand that Lonesome Road is meant specifically for you as the character personally, but I had this problem with FO3 and Oblivion as well, so I just installed the DelayDLC mod after five minutes of playing, and thus have not really listened to Lonesome Road stuff yet).

Smashbox
09-01-2012, 07:02 PM
Incidentally, any word on what form Skyrim's DLC will take?

Wizardry
09-01-2012, 07:21 PM
Various RPGs taught me the harsh lesson to never store stuff in containers that don't explicitly belong to me.
Yeah, but that's just old technology (with severe memory and storage space limitations) causing areas to reset every time you re-enter them. And in the Infinity Engine's case, where the engine is so rigid that any significant graphical change in a zone requires a complete new zone to be made to replace it, causing items to be lost during the switch.

None of those problems should be relevant today.

Althea
09-01-2012, 07:45 PM
The problem is that the Fallout DLCS are not well implemented into the campaign at all. You basically get tons of pop up messages when you leave the starting area, and have 4 extra radio broadcasts (I understand that Lonesome Road is meant specifically for you as the character personally, but I had this problem with FO3 and Oblivion as well, so I just installed the DelayDLC mod after five minutes of playing, and thus have not really listened to Lonesome Road stuff yet).
Oh, that's definitely true. They're not seamless at that moment in time and one could argue that they just "hang" over you until you've done them, but I'm not sure how else they could really integrate them beyond the BioWare method of adding an NPC that you interact with. I liked how the NV stuff in particular was made up of four different locales which almost visibly took you out of the Mojave wasteland. To me, that was pretty cool.


Incidentally, any word on what form Skyrim's DLC will take?
As far as I know, it's going to be the usual Bethesda stuff, i.e. mega-great value story packs.

Kadayi
09-01-2012, 08:05 PM
That was a massive design flaw in ME2. All of the non-N7 armour sets have non-removeable helmets - Inferno, Terminus, Cerberus, Collector, Blood Dragon (DA:O set).

Yeah I really don't even understand why they bothered tbh. The armour was never viable from a gaming perspective.


He was there from release. Warden's Keep was Day 0/1 DLC.

There was something vaguely egregious about it nevertheless because it broke the 4th wall in terms of the experience.

deano2099
09-01-2012, 09:30 PM
The flaw was that chests weren't chests in Dragon Age: Origins. In Baldur's Gate, for example, chests were things you could repeatedly interact with. You could take items out of them just as you could put items into them. You could leave items in any random chest, leave the zone, come back 10 days later and retrieve them all. Dragon Age: Origins had this terrible streamlined design where chests were merely item collection points.

But how often did you actually use that functionality? Or did you just have 1-3 chests where you stashed all your stuff (because, of course, chests being infinitely big is wonderful classical design while chests being infinitely small is terrible).

Wizardry
09-01-2012, 09:48 PM
But how often did you actually use that functionality? Or did you just have 1-3 chests where you stashed all your stuff (because, of course, chests being infinitely big is wonderful classical design while chests being infinitely small is terrible).
I didn't need to in Baldur's Gate because of the small number of worthy magical items. In Baldur's Gate 2 I used that functionality a lot. My stronghold was filled with treasure. I used multiple containers as a way to sort the items, even though each container was effectively limitless as you said.

And yes, infinitely large containers is better than infinitely small containers. Why? Because infinitely small containers means no containers at all. Dragon Age: Origin had containers. They weren't infinitely small because you could find items in them. It's just that they effectively became infinitely small as soon as you took all the items out of them.

In a perfect RPG all containers will be limited by their size. But as it stands there's just no way anyone can claim that Dragon Age: Origin's container system is better than what we had as far back as 1990 (when persistent worlds started becoming feasible).