DLC and expansions as artistic property?

[shadow_Fox81]

i was playing fallout and i thought you the expansions were fun expanded the fallout worldt they didn't add much to my experience or understanding of the game.

do gamers feel Dlc and expansions are equivilant to a directors cut but removed for comercial reasons or was it a deadline issue.
My example of a games expansion adding to the overall theme of the Game would be the lost chaters as it made the hero's journey more complete.

so basically I'm asking are expansion just to milk profits and for shits and giggles or do you think they add to the integrity of a game as expanding the narrative and overiding theme in the way the creators wanted to pre-rlease(but couldn't because they had to prove they wold turn a profit).

thoughts or examples in either direction?

(edited bit so people don't say What fallout were you playing)

ok i'll clear that up. I was playing fallout 3, don't like mothership zeta it feels wrong in the context of a more serious fallout. THought Anchorage was just fleshing out the universe but in an unhelpful way, broken steel i wasn't playing the game for the main quest any way(at least not after liam neeson left me).

I liked how the Pitt raised the issue of slavery and evil for the greater good ( how much better would the waters of life have been if you could side with eth enclave) but it was less well executed than point look out.
I liked point look out for variety but it felt kinda flirtatious with serious subject matter and its main quest offered me the choice between two ass holes. it felt primarily there to give me more swag which is a profit thing.

 

[angel34]

I am a big fan of DLC and I think it can add to the experience of the game. You just need to look at Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV and Fallout (3 in particular) for examples. However Dead Space wins the bad DLC award for the costumes/weapons it tried to sell me .

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Which DLC were you playing? I thought Honest Hearts and Old World Blues gave me a much better picture of events in the Mojave, and even Dead Money tied up some loose ends.
EDIT - As far as 3 goes the only DLC to add anything meaningful was the Pitt, the rest was just a waste of time (a cringeworthy waste of time in the case of Mothership Zeta).


On DLC in general, I like it if it's substantial. New quest lines, maps, factions etc I'm all for. New costume skins and (of course) horse armour can go jump in a f*cking fire for being wastes of time and money.

 

[AlternatePFG]

I thought the DLC for New Vegas in particular added alot to the lore, and had some damn good writing as well. Dead Money would be utterly mediocre for me if it weren't for the companions and lore behind the Sierra Madre. I really liked all of the DLC for New Vegas, while 3 was more hit or miss. Operation Anchorage and Mothership Zeta are DLC's I'd rather forget, with head trauma if necessary, but the Pitt and Point Lookout were really interesting.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I thought the DLC for New Vegas in particular added alot to the lore, and had some damn good writing as well. Dead Money would be utterly mediocre for me if it weren't for the companions and lore behind the Sierra Madre. I really liked all of the DLC for New Vegas, while 3 was more hit or miss. Operation Anchorage and Mothership Zeta are DLC's I'd rather forget, with head trauma if necessary, but the Pitt and Point Lookout were really interesting.

Pretty much exactly the same.

The New vegas DLC added to the story of the Mojave, especially OWB which explains the origins of some rather infamous creatures. Plus all of the DLC in NV are connected to the Mojave or something in the Mojave in some kind of way, such as Dead Money having Father Elijah and Cristine, Honest Hearts has Joshua Graham (The Burned Man) and Old World Blues has a lot.

Also all of the NV DLC are involved (Honest hearts not so much) in the story of Ulysses and the Courier.

So for Fallout: New Vegas, no, they add a lot to the lore and world.

However, F3's DLC such as Mothership Zeta and Operation Anchorage had no RPG elements and were basically just an excuse to add more loot, and MZ in particular had some of the worst story telling I've ever seen.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

I am a big fan of DLC and I think it can add to the experience of the game. You just need to look at Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV and Fallout (3 in particular) for examples. However Dead Space wins the bad DLC award for the costumes/weapons it tried to sell me .

i havn't played Gta IV can you expand on how it adds to the game and whic DLc's.

and Reddead felt so imaculately concieved the first time through i feel extra content for the single player would hamper that integrity (especially with zombies), can you provide evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

 

[angel34]

i havn't played Gta IV can you expand on how it adds to the game and whic DLc's.

and Reddead felt so imaculately concieved the first time through i feel extra content for the single player would hamper that integrity (especially with zombies), can you provide exidence or reasoning to the contrary.

GTA IV had the Ballard of Gay Tony, which added to the game by letting you see a completely different side to liberty city without losing connection to the original story. It followed through on supporting characters we saw in the main game, and gave them a conclusion in their own personal stories we never saw in the main game. All in all it makes the setting for the game more believable. It is a near perfect example of it done right.

Red Dead single player was perfect to begin with, but you had to get involved in the wild west setting to fully enjoy it. The online DLC allowed you to live in the game world with your friends, getting immersed in the wild west setting and have great time. The best bit was when you returned to the single player, the world seemed more accessible as you recognised most of it and the main characters past was more vivid as you had played the outlaw robbing trains and running with a possy of outlaws. It is a rare case of pure online DLC (outlaws till the end) improving an already fantastic single player.

 

[Sixcess]

I don't take DLC into account when considering how good a game is - particularly how good a game's story is. If it was important to the story it would have been part of the game, and if it's at all important to the ongoing plot development then why am I being asked to pay more for it when I already bought the game? (Yes, Mass Effect 2, I'm looking at you.)