DLC done right

[TheSapphireKnight]

Bad company 1 DLC was all free if I recall correctly. Another game that did it suprisingly well was Wipeout Pure. They added a metric fuckton of new tracks and new ships as well as many crossovers tying into new PSP releases from SOCOM to Daxter. On a portable platform no less.

 

[skywolfblue]

- Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare, which gives you an entirely new approach to a game that is already quite replayable, and a lot of fun to boot.

- Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2 adds a new and really interesting story to the Rapture mythos, one that I was all too happy to explore.

Those would be my favorites as well.

RAAM's Shadow from Gears of War 3 was also pretty good.

 

[Eldrig]

Morrowind's Bloodmoon expansion was really the quality and scope I wish a lot of games would return to (like many of New Vegas' expansions... EXCEPT YOU, DEAD MONEY) and many of the Crusader Kings expansions like Sword of Islam and Legacy of Rome. Although I'd have to say one of the best expansions in my mind is Beyond the Sword for Civ 4. Great stuff.

 

[WanderingFool]

No DLC is the better option. If these game publishers used all of the resources they have poured into DLC to instead try and create new IPs, I wonder where the industry would be today.

It's a double-edged sword.

I agree that DLC should not be a crutch for developers to focus on instead of more content for the base game or new projects. Just a few years back, we had "complete" products that stood on their own and didn't require extra content to answer plot points that should have been resolved in the game itself. Now, monetization schemes and cut content being repurposed after the fact are the norm.

However, I think DLC in and of itself is good, because it can provide more value to a game down the line. As said earlier, the TES expansions and most of Rockstar's DLC output is usually as good as (or even better than) the base games.

I think that delves into what makes good DLC and what makes poor DLC.

Personally, Bethesda has been doing DLC right by me with all the Fallout games, thus far.
Gearbox with Borderlands 1&2 as well.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Borderlands does it well:
you always get some new things to fight in new areas to explore for $10.
And it looks like they're going to make more character classes for those who want to play through the game for a 5th or 6th time.

The problem with most DLC is that it's overpriced.

 

[Nepenthe87]

Shivering isles
Fallout 3 DLC minus Broken Steel and Mothership Zeta.
All New Vegas DLC
General Knoxx DLC

Those all stand out to me because even though they all have very meaty stories and great content, none of them feel essential to the main game. They all feel like bonuses to flesh out the world for people who wanted to invest a little bit more into the game.

I hated broken steel, not because it was a bad DLC, but because it felt like the "true ending" to the game. You shouldn't have to pay more for a game to get to the denouement. I didn't like MZ because it implied that the aliens started the great war, which IMO, goes against one of the main themes of Fallout. That is humanity's inability to separate itself from conflict, or as Fallout's most recognizable line states: War, war never changes.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I generally like the DLC packs for Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas as they typically add a good amount of content for their price. The "Lair of the Shadow Broker" DLC for Mass Effect 2 was also quite good. Borderlands 1 & 2 seem kind of hit or miss, with some of the DLC packs (like the Secret Armory of General Knoxx) being amazing and others being completely lackluster (Moxxi's Underdome Riot and Captain Scarlet and Her Pirate's Booty).

Admittedly though, I miss expansions. I miss being excited for expansions like "StarCraft: Brood War" or the many Command & Conquer expansions which were basically full games on their own.

 

[TrevHead]

Dodonpachi Resurrection Black Label & Mushihimisama Futari Black Label(360)

CAVE does good DLC for their 360 shmups. As their Black Labels are remade versions of the vanilla game, with different enemy placement, bullet paterns, scoring system and music, and on par with the original in terms of quality.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Although it was good and worth the money, the Prince of Persia reboot DLC shouldn't have been the only way to have a proper ending.

I definitely +1 the Bethesda/Gearbox votes, I didn't like Oblivion at all but the Shivering Isles was amazing. And obviously Artorias was totally worth it.

Now that I've been thinking about this and combing over my games, I really miss expansion packs. The DLC thing is really a double edged sword...for example I'd love to have a few extra colossus to fight in SotC for like 10 bucks but it would totally fuck the artistic integrity of the game. The ones that everyone here seems to like are actually smaller versions of proper expansion packs. You could take the 4 DLC from Fallout 3/New Vegas and release it as what would be an expansion back in the day, so it's good when it's broken up and purchased at your discretion and leisure I suppose.

 

[Something Amyss]

No DLC is the better option. If these game publishers used all of the resources they have poured into DLC to instead try to create new IPs, I wonder where the industry would be today.

Actually, they would very likely take a lot of the same content and do what they would do previously: sell them as full-priced spin-offs or expansions.

I mean, "if" they actually decided to try new things, that'd be interesting, but it's not going to happen. Especially since we, the gamer, reward them for not. And not just in DLC, so it's not exactly demonstrating your point.

 

[Fuhrlock]

Mass Effect 2 had some overall decent DLC, with LotSB being in my opinion far better executed than many elements or the main games plot/subplots (don't get me wrong I still enjoyed ME2's story overall, but bits of it felt too much like filler). Still my favourite piece of DLC is Overlord because the ending is just so brilliantly executed, I still remained stunned by it even after playing through it multiple times (though maybe I'm just bias towards it since it has both Simon Templeman voice acting and a paragon interrupt where you pistol whip some-one).

 

[Owen Robertson]

I think any developer with the decency to put PSYCHICAL FREAKING COPIES of DLC on shelves is making DLC done right.

And so far, I think only Bethesda with their RPG sandboxes and Lionhead Studios with Fable 2 have actually done such things.

seriously, why is this rarely done?

DLC stands for DownLoadable Content. You're talking about expansion packs. There's a difference. Or there WAS until modern market perversion.

 

[AzureArchon]

The Horse Armor DLC for Oblivion the best by far, I don't know what you guys are talking about.

/sarcasm

 

[MaCaulay]

By far my favourite DLC ever is 'The Pitt' for Fallout 3.

Most people when thinking about Fallout DLC immediately think of 'Mothership Zeta' but for me 'The Pitt' just sticks out above the others. This is mainly due to the fact that the story actually requires you to make a massive moral decision which I had to stop and really think hard about. Even today thinking back on the choice I ended up making I'm not sure if I made the right choice...

Bethesda has always been good at DLC though, 'The Shivering Isles' being another download that came to mind the moment I saw this question, so I am really looking forward to seeing how the 'Dragonborn' DLC for Skyrim is handled.

 

[StormShaun]

Let me see.

- Fallout 3. All of the DLC was amazing apart from Anchorage and Mothership Zeta. Anchorage was still cool and Mothership Zeta led to a damn impressive mod on the PC.
- Mass Effect 2. It gave me a longer campaign then I imagined and that is awesome.
- TES: Oblivion. Shivering Isles gave me hope in DLC again.
- Red Dead Redemption. Rockstar do DLC right, they gave me a fun zombie campaign and free co-op missions ^.^

I look forward to what good DLC can do for us.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I've been replaying some games recently with added DLC, and was surprised at how some of it adds so well to the original game. So what DLC did you find to be well worth the money?

My first thoughts go to:

- Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare, which gives you an entirely new approach to a game that is already quite replayable, and a lot of fun to boot.

Not only this.
Take a look at the extensions for GTA4 and it seems that Rockstar is one of the few developers knowing how a money worthy DLC for a game should be.The Ballad OF Gay Tony pleases people missing the fun in the game and Lost And Damned is my personal favorite when it comes to GTA4. Both worth their money and there`s a retail disk out a long time ago.

 

[ThriKreen]

Well the way I see it, why don't they just already add the DLC into the game in the first place? DLC is supposed to come and be announced after the game has been released. Not before.

When companies do this it tells me that they could've made the original game better but money and greed got in the way.

Because you're ignoring a 4-6 month window where the game is in lockdown for bug fixing, polishing for publishing and release. You need a skeleton crew for that, so the other developers either roll off to another project, or work on more content for the game.

And the perception of cut content, devs have to make the call so they can make their deadline, and for what could be salvaged later as DLC. But no dev really enjoys cutting stuff for DLC only, given only a percentage of players will buy it.

Remember that prior to DLC and widespread high speed Internet access, there were two outcomes to the cut content: stayed on the floor, or MAYBE there was enough purchases to warrant and expansion pack. But devs generally don't find out if they can do that til a year.

 

[ultrachicken]

Gonna have to mention The Shivering Isles again. Unusual setting, brilliant characters, excellent quest design; hell, that expansion was better than the main game.

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

When companies do this it tells me that they could've made the original game better but money and greed got in the way.

Actually, a lot of launch day DLC has no bearing on the original product. There's a weird limbo period after the game is completed but while its awaiting certification where developers have literally nothing to do but wait for the game to launch, and fix whatever problems may arise. Most DLC you see released on/near launch is completed during this timeframe. Either that, or you break a small team away from the main one when the game is near completion to start working on it.

The only time DLC that's in the launch window is bad is when it's on-disc, because then it was created parallel to the development of the main game, and taking resources away from a fully-fledged game to work on DLC is never a good idea.

OT: Shivering Isles is easily my favourite DLC, though I really enjoyed Knights of the Nine as well. I didn't realize that was DLC until later, because it came inlcuded with the PS3 version of Oblivion.

I liked Broken Steel as well, since the original ending for Fallout 3 was less than satisfying, but I never actually finished it. It was all buggy, and always locked my computer up, so I just quit. I thought it was the right idea, though.

Other than that, though, I don't partake in DLC very often. I'm usually opposed to paying more money for a game I've already bought. The sole exception was the Black Ops DLC multiplayer/zombie maps, because my friends and I were hardcore into that game, which is to date the only CoD I've played frequently online.