Fallout New Vegas DLC: Is it worth it?

[SeriousIssues]

At the same time the emergence of dlc also makes me worry that we will never see a game with that San Andreas amount of content right on the launch disc. If we ever get a gta that big again, it will probably cost $60 for the first 1/3 and another $20-40 for each island. A San Andreas size game starts looking like less of a good value when it starts climbing past $100.

Yes, but GTA 4 was decently sized, and much of San Andreas WAS deserts and forests, not that that's a bad thing, but GTA 4 was just cities.
Either way, I'm starting to doubt if they could pull something that big off again with the rise in graphics and such, though I am a moron on the subject of hardware and disc size.

 

[GonzoGamer]

At the same time the emergence of dlc also makes me worry that we will never see a game with that San Andreas amount of content right on the launch disc. If we ever get a gta that big again, it will probably cost $60 for the first 1/3 and another $20-40 for each island. A San Andreas size game starts looking like less of a good value when it starts climbing past $100.

Yes, but GTA 4 was decently sized, and much of San Andreas WAS deserts and forests, not that that's a bad thing, but GTA 4 was just cities.
Either way, I'm starting to doubt if they could pull something that big off again with the rise in graphics and such, though I am a moron on the subject of hardware and disc size.

Yea...I guess gta4 was ?decent? sized but one of the things I always loved about GTA games was the in-decent amount of content and space and everything else. GTA4 felt like a ?Decent? gta clone. I loved having the variation of the backwoods and desert areas.
They could make something that massive for this gen. The 360 would have to get it on multiple discs but they?ve had to deal with that before. The real reason we wont see it is because they can make a lot more money with more of a gta4 scheme rather than giving it all to us for the $60 disc price.

 

[DustyDrB]

Dead Money gives you easy access to a lot of basic, but important items (stimpacks, weapon repair kits, various drugs). There is also a chance at the end for you to get some items that will earn you many caps (by many caps, I mean 10,0000 to over 300,000 caps). It provides probably the best light armor in the game. Aside from the loot, you'll gain easy access to a vendor who will have the most caps in the game (meaning you can sell more to "him").

Isnt the stealth armour that you get in old world blues better? I know it has a higher stealth bonus as well as a bonus to agility and perception I believe. I dont know how the DT compares though.

Different armor classes. The Assassin's Suit is light armor, which I generally used because my character had low strength (I , and I chose the two Light Armor-associated perks. The Stealth Suit Mark II is a better armor, but it is a medium armor. Once you level up the Stealth Suit Mk II, then it is clearly the better armor. But I still preferred to have my perks (this [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Travel_Light] and this [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Light_Touch], for reference).

Edit: And I actually used Joshua Graham's armor mostly anyway. It boosts your critical chance, which is something I tried to do in every way I could. My current character basically auto-crits (I actually did the math and I have an 89% critical chance whenever I use my main weapons).

 

[Cheesus333]

I bought Dead Money. It was pretty good, especially if you like a challenge. Moreso than the main game, anyway. I only survived because I stumbled on a snowglobe and earned myself 2000 Sierra Madre chips. Great little story, too, with interesting and varied characters.

I've heard nothing of Honest Hearts but my friend sang praise for Old World Blues from the rooftops, so I'll be checking that out next.

CAPTCHA: call me

Sorry captcha, I'm not that kind of guy.

 

[Kapol]

What games cost $10 and only last a few hours? I've gotten plenty more than 'a few hours' out of Portal, and there is the quality of those hours to be considered. You can't seriously compare a FONV DLC pack to Portal for god's sake.

BTW I'm not saying it's a blatant cash grab because of the DLC itself, it's rather because of the price.

Fallout: New Vegas-Dead Money: 4-5 hours
Fallout: New Vegas-Honest Hearts: 3-5 hours
Limbo: 2 hours
Braid: 2 hours
Castle Crashers: 3-5 hours
Dead Rising 2: Case Zero: 3-4 hours (treated as individual game as it's sold as such)
Dead Rising 2: Case West: 3 hours (same as above)
Penny Arcade Episode 1: 3-5 hours
Penny Arcade Episode 2: 3-5 hours
Portal: Still Alive: 2 hours
Scott Pilgrim: 4 hours

As for the price, I think it's fair compared to other games. You could pay $15 for a couple of maps in CoD, $5 for a single fighter in Mortal Kombat or MvC3, or $10 for a full new area to explore.

You're saying that you completed both Braid and Portal in 2 hours. If you play those games properly they take way longer than 2 hours. Yeah you could blitz right through them without stopping for a moment, but what kind of gaming experience is that. Supposedly you can beat FONV in 3 hours, does that mean that 3 hours is how long the game lasts?

That's the first thing. The second thing is, you're saying DLC and games are the same thing, but they aren't. Playing an extra 4-5 hours of DLC bolted onto a game you've already played is NOT the same as playing an entirely new game like Braid for example. There are new characters, new stories, new game mechanics, it's just not the same.

BTW you think the price is fair compared to other games, and then you list a bunch of stuff that nobody in their right minds would ever purchase... like $5 for a fighter in Mortal Kombat, jesus christ. The price is way too high.

Both Braid and Portal are very short games. Braid even has an achievement for beating it in less then an hour. And there really is no reason NOT to blitz through either of them. Both are very linear games with no variation in what happens. The only thing to slow you down in Braid is the 'story' which isn't even connected to the game other then the very vague ending. I did hit the wrong key for Portal, which took me about 3 hours to complete the first time through the story. But as I said, there's really no replay value other then the challenge levels, which have the same problem as well, and if I were to consider those are part of the time, I'd also have to consider the amount of time it takes to find everything in the add-ons, which would take me a lot longer then the challenge maps from Portal.

The numbers I gave were for completing the add-ons, which were both very clear in their beginning and end of their 'archs.' I didn't say I completed the full game in that time, that was more like 40+ hours as I didn't rush through the main campaign.

And the problem with your argument for the second part is that the add ons have ALL OF THOSE THINGS. New characters (companions, enemies, and you can find information on important people from the area), new stories for each that, while having ties to the main game, are largely self-contained, and new mechanics (Dead Money's reliance on companions and constant damage, as well as the fact you must tear a limb off an enemy for them to stay dead. Honest Heart is different in that it takes a lot more focus on the survival aspect that was pretty much glossed over in the main game). So how are they really different? Just because they don't actually use the same game engine?

As for nobody in their right minds buying them, they obviously do, otherwise they would stop making them. I do agree $5 for a single fighter is overpriced, especially since that character doesn't really change anything or add anything to the game's 'story mode' (if it even has one, as some fighters don't). But if people weren't buying them, then the companies obviously wouldn't make them. They aren't stupid for the most part.

 

[Kapol]

Well clearly we disagree on principle, if nothing else. I'd much rather play 3 hours of Portal than 5 hours of FONV DLC, and if you disagree, there's just no point in us discussing this.

For Portal, while I loved it the first time, I would rather play through one of the NV DLC then play through it again. That's the problem with puzzle games for me, as I remember most puzzle solutions and best parts of anything, which makes them dull to come back to. I would, however, easily take any of the DLC for NV over Braid or Limbo though, as well as many other $10 games.

And I went back to check how long it took me for each DLC for a more accurate guess. The timestamps for Honest Hearts, beginning to end, made it take 10 hours, which didn't include me doing both endings. The timestamps for Old World Blues were 15 hours between start and finish, finding every are in the game. And I erased my Dead Money beginning by mistake, so I'll still go with 5 hours for it.

Why I point that out is, for all three of them, I would much rather have played through any one of them over nearly any $10 game. They were all well-made in terms of story and setting (though I did have issues with crashing on PC). And I stand by that they are all worth the $10 asking price. I guess my question to you is, have you actually played them? I'm not asking to sound like a smartass or anything. I'm honestly curious.

 

[mirror's edgy]

It is a WASTE OF MONEY. I would barely pay 22 quid for the full game right now, let alone a few more hours of DLC.

If these packs were priced at say, £2.50 each, I would not hesitate to buy them.

Instead of wasting time adding massively overpriced additional content, they should concentrate on making the next game. This blatant cash grab is both sad and pathetic.

How is providing content for money a blatant cash grab? It is really any different then full games that cost about $10 but only last a few hours? Like Limbo, or Portal? There are only a few hours in content in each of them and they're about the same price.

DLC, when done right, extends a game's experience and can be used to further a game's story. That's exactly what these are doing. I do agree there is plenty of overpriced DLC (such as the characters in MvC3 and Mortal Kombat 9), but that doesn't mean that all DLC are overpriced pieces of garbage.

What games cost $10 and only last a few hours? I've gotten plenty more than 'a few hours' out of Portal, and there is the quality of those hours to be considered. You can't seriously compare a FONV DLC pack to Portal for god's sake.

BTW I'm not saying it's a blatant cash grab because of the DLC itself, it's rather because of the price.

I stand by the ten American dollar price of the New Vegas DLCs because of the way they are presented. The each take place in an entirely new and sizable location vastly different from the Mojave. They also offer interesting and unique side stories that build on the universe, but are largely independent from the main plot. The gameplay also offers the same variety and clever design that the series is known for, in short, I like almost everything about these DLCs. The reason they are most certainly not a "blatant cash grab" is that they build on the game's mechanics, but function entirely independently. I got at least five hours out of Dead Money and Honest Hearts respectively and my above description is not an exaggeration. I'm not exactly rolling in cash, but DLC, in this case, is a well utilized format.

 

[DarkRyter]

Did you REALLY like New Vegas?

Then yes.

 

[lion el jhonson]

well the first DLC has a great horror atmosphere to it and that was the only time in that game that I found myself scared, the second DLC was good short, simple and to the point. The latest DLC was funny and challenging, nuff said.

 

[Kapol]

For Portal, while I loved it the first time, I would rather play through one of the NV DLC then play through it again. That's the problem with puzzle games for me, as I remember most puzzle solutions and best parts of anything, which makes them dull to come back to. I would, however, easily take any of the DLC for NV over Braid or Limbo though, as well as many other $10 games.

And I went back to check how long it took me for each DLC for a more accurate guess. The timestamps for Honest Hearts, beginning to end, made it take 10 hours, which didn't include me doing both endings. The timestamps for Old World Blues were 15 hours between start and finish, finding every are in the game. And I erased my Dead Money beginning by mistake, so I'll still go with 5 hours for it.

Why I point that out is, for all three of them, I would much rather have played through any one of them over nearly any $10 game. They were all well-made in terms of story and setting (though I did have issues with crashing on PC). And I stand by that they are all worth the $10 asking price. I guess my question to you is, have you actually played them? I'm not asking to sound like a smartass or anything. I'm honestly curious.

What are you talking about play it through again? I'm comparing playing both of them for the first time. It would make no sense at all to compare playing the FONV DLC for the first time with replaying Portal.

I haven't played the FONV DLC but I have 58 hours racked up on one FONV playthrough and I was considering a second. I'm sure they are very good, although I seriously doubt there's 15 hours of gameplay in OWB.

My point is, I'm sure the story writing, particularly in OWB, is very good but its still FONV at its core. You mention Braid, which I consider to be one of the best indie games I've ever played. I'd give 5 hours of Braid easily for 10 of FONV DLC, I can tell you that right now.

Besides, my main contention here is the PRICE. I'm not against DLC per se, and I think OWB is a great example of how you should do DLC - it's just vastly overpriced. FYI I just bought Lair of the Shadow Broker, Stolen Memory and The Arrival - they are DLC for Mass Effect 2 if you didn't know - for just under 8 quid, because they were on special offer; now I consider that a good deal, mainly for the first two rather than Arrival if I'm honest.

To sum up, DLC isn't a bad idea, but it needs to be appropriately priced, and like most other things in this shitty industry it nearly always isn't.

Actually, my point on the replay is that I could play Portal three to five times over, including my first run-through, to get all the time I invested into a one piece of DLC for the same price. Even though Portal was great, it was a short experience, and when you consider your paying $10 for a couple hours of entertainment, it's quite an expensive one too. To be fair, one of the reasons Portal worked so well was because it was short. But the level of content you get for your dollar needs to be considered as well as the quality. While I wouldn't say any of the DLC is 'Portal-good,' it comes as close as almost any standalone game I've seen.

As for the 15 hours, I was just using my own gameplay as an example. That is how long it took me on the save I used. That is going to every location though.

As for Braid, I thought it was a pretty overhyped game. The gameplay was good, but the story and the game were so disjointed that it ended up standing on semi-interesting gameplay mechanic alone. And I would much rather play the 5+ hours I got with each different DLC then play through the 2-3 hours that Braid offers. I think it's really hard with you to say for certainty that you'd prefer one thing over the other if you haven't experienced both.

And my whole point is that the price is more then fair for the content and quality of content you get. How is the $10 game that offers you a small ammount of excellent content worth so much more then what is basically a game in itself offering you a large ammount of very good content? If they charged any less, they'd be losing money. It's not like they just took the same engine and same items and painted them a slightly different color. They added brand new models to the game, including character, enemy, weapon, and enviroment models, voice afters for every character, a completely new story that, at worst, takes a bit from the main one to ground it to the same world, and adds new gameplay elements on top of all that (though I'd say Honest Hearts didn't really have any noticable changes).

So my point is, why is it so much worse for a company who put so much effort not deserve to be paid as much compared to those who make games that have less content, when only a few have any real unique mechanics? I just don't understand the reasoning that, just because it's an add-on for a game, it has to be cheaper then a 'full game' even if the full game has less content.

 

[Kapol]

Well since you just dismissed Braid's gameplay as 'semi-interesting', I don't think we're going to agree on anything here.

"How is the $10 game that offers you a small ammount of excellent content worth so much more then what is basically a game in itself offering you a large ammount of very good content?"

Because it's an entirely new game, new concept, new gameplay, etc.

"If they charged any less, they'd be losing money."

Simply stating this does not make it true.

"It's not like they just took the same engine and same items and painted them a slightly different color."

"They added brand new models to the game, including character, enemy, weapon, and enviroment models, voice afters for every character, a completely new story that, at worst, takes a bit from the main one to ground it to the same world, and adds new gameplay elements on top of all that (though I'd say Honest Hearts didn't really have any noticable changes)."

Actually, for me that equates to 'painting them a slightly new colour'. Once you have an engine and a core game that exists and is relatively stable, it's not such a big deal to create a bunch of new models and shove a few new quests into the game. The story-writing is the only thing that is really worth a bit more, frankly.

"So my point is, why is it so much worse for a company who put so much effort not deserve to be paid as much compared to those who make games that have less content, when only a few have any real unique mechanics? I just don't understand the reasoning that, just because it's an add-on for a game, it has to be cheaper then a 'full game' even if the full game has less content."

It has to be cheaper because it's more of the same shit that I already played, therefore its value is lessened. Mission packs do not equal brand new games.

Fine, then by your own logic then you shouldn't have bought New Vegas either. It's basically just Fallout 3 with a new area, characters, and story, some fairly minor tweaks and new models anyways, right? Why would it deserve to be a full priced game? The only major difference is Hardcore mode, and even that could be added without much hastle, right?

My main problem with you argument is that you make it sound like throwing these together is easy. Have you ever done it? It's not like they just used the same basic 'mojave' area then just threw in a couple new characters and quests like you seem to think they did. They basically treated them like their own Fallout games on a smaller scale. Just because they have the same engine doesn't mean that making new content is easy, otherwise you could argue that every game made with the Gamebryo engine should have only taken a year at most to make.

Now it's true that I can't say for sure how much it cost to make the DLC, but I doubt you can also say for sure how much it cost to make Portal or many other $10 games. The only one I can say with any certainty for much it cost is Braid, which, according to Mr. Blow, cost $200,000 to make. I highly doubt that's the standard development cost for an indie game though.

You're right though, we're obviously never going to agree. You have your opinions on things and I have mine, and that's fine. I guess I just don't understand your reasoning just as you don't seem to understand mine. It's likely best we leave it at that.