🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 9:35:40 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
> <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:15:50 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> >> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
> >> you old farts are getting rusty :)
> >> 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QK_yEgsV0
> >> 
> >> Definitely a more colorful look than FO:3 or FO:NV.  I kind of liked
> >> the gritty color palette of those games, shouldn't feel like
> >> Disneyland IMO.  But this looks like fun too.
> >
> >I'd heard about it, haven't bothered looking into it yet though, I'd rather just wait until it's out.  Preferably until after all the DLCs and I can buy them on sale all at once.
> >
> >I re-bought Fallout 3 awhile ago with all the DLCs as it was cheaper than buying just the DLCs... go figure.  I then got tired of the game before even getting to any of the DLCs.  Might have something to do with some of the mods I'd installed though, one added a ton areas to explore in the city, and a ton of crap to pick up.
> >
> >I also did the same with Borderlands 2, though I got slightly into the first DLC, but found it way too hard, and technically did get more use out of it as I played the Psycho up to about 55.
> >
> >I'm getting really tired of all the DLC business, I just want to buy a game that's got everything in it already.
> 
> I have no real use for DLC in single player titles, which is why I
> pretty much never buy it unless it is included in an on-sale late
> purchase.
> 
> A good example is Dying Light.  I enjoyed the SP game thoroughly, but
> when I finished the campaign I was finished.  No desire to spend more
> for add-on missions.  I needed a break from the long campaign by the
> time I was done, was not looking for encore performances.  Even if
> they release an all-inclusive version with all DLC for a fraction of
> the cost of the DLC itself, I'll still probably never play it again.
> 
> I see single-player DLC as mostly the waste product of the gaming
> process.  Someone has taken all the content that didn't seem good
> enough to be judged in release ratings, or the crap that seemed oddly
> disconnected from the main game, and found a way to repackage it.  
> 
> Kind of like these mystery-meat spam-like food products.  It's like
> "ok, here's all the shit that came flying off the animal while the
> prime cuts were being butchered, so lets grind it up and shape it into
> something that looks fit for human consumption and sell it at a higher
> profit margin than the primary product".
> 
> The exception for me is in multiplayer games where DLC equates to more
> maps to play.  Number of quality maps is everything.  DICE is one
> example where the DLC model has replaced what was previously
> "expansion packs", and done so successfully.  They are one of the few
> companies that live up to the promises they make by extending the life
> of their games through expansion pack updates (although admittedly
> their premium editions which include all DLC are pricey by most folk's
> standards).
> 
> One of those "in-between" cases that comes to mind is FarCry4.  I
> bought the season pass mostly for the promised multiplayer additions,
> most of which turned out to not be worth the extra cost.  Most of the
> single player DLC I haven't even loaded up.  On the other hand, the
> fact that this franchise has mechanisms that allow users to create
> their own levels (co-op only unfortunately) and easily publish them
> for others to play makes me want to support them with my dollars.  I
> really wish they would open the user created maps to competitive play,
> but the fact that they basically offer "infinite DLC" with the
> community-maps model is something to be commended in this day of
> gaming.  Reminds me of the old days of community mods.
> 
> Yes, sometimes DLC multiplayer content is actually worth the asking
> price.  Sometimes the maps themselves are well designed, and while I
> doubt many in these 2 newsgroups will be able to relate, the
> multiplayer community knows that sometimes there is actually a benefit
> to not releasing too many maps at once.  If you release a game with 20
> maps, the folks that buy it on release tend to focus on the 4 or 5
> best ones and ignore the rest and the game kind of carves out it's
> niche around them.  The other 15 get ignored and just fall out of the
> loop.  However, if you release them incrementally, like four at a time
> right around the time the community has tired of the first four, you
> can provide an experience that results in hundreds of hours of
> playtime, ongoing friends made, and so forth.  Only problem is, all
> maps must be of decent quality of course level design and testing is
> different with today's detailed environments.  This incremental map
> release cycle is what DICE really shines at.  Valve has also been
> great with their ongoing success of Team Fortress 2.  That game is now
> 8 years old, free to play, yet has an un-ending supply of people
> playing it.  You can't get much more bang for your buck than that in
> gaming.

Borderlands 1 DLCs, they hugely improved the game, I enjoyed the DLC stories far more than the original game.  

The only other similar one I can think of is NWN, the additional adventures were also far better than the original one.  

Of course I can't really comment on the Fallout 3 ones as I never actually got to them.  Part of the problem with what I did was probably playing new characters through the whole game again with both FO3 and BL2 instead of taking my favorites through the DLCs as I did with Borderlands 1.  Of course I found the DLCs insanely hard with my old Gunzerker for BL2, which is why I started a new character there.  FO3 I don't think I had any of my old saves.

The ones that really irritate me are the ones that are like 'get a new gun that's 10x better than anything else in the game for $9'  That's more like micro-transactions than DLCs.  Especially annoying in multiplayer games.

- Justisaur