The art of the Expansion

[Count_de_Monet]

I recently started playing around with Age of Empires 2 again and I realized how much fun could be had even though it lacks a bit of control and my micro skills are a bit rusty. Then I installed Conquerors and I was shocked how much good stuff was added. They added 5 new civilizations, a number of new map types, a new system of map creation (you could choose by real world geographic location), new game modes, and even made the AI a little smarter in certain situations.

This made me think of some of my favorite all time expansions over the years.

Frozen Throne, while it may not have felt like much of an expansion right out of the box, completely changed Warcraft 3's online play for me. It gave me new options, some amazing niche units, and a new campaign which while a bit wonky was a great idea (the hero campaign instead of base building). FT is also when the custom games started to really pick up so I was playing plenty of tower defenses and hero maps.

The original Command & Conquer expansions were completely insane. They took a game which was taxed me at the time (and still taxes me in certain ways) and threw in bonus levels where the margin between winning and losing could be a single soldier's death. I don't remember a lot of units being added, but the missions were such a challenge it hardly mattered.

What makes an expansion good, in my opinion, isn't necessarily the amount of new content but the way it changes the original game. Most of my favorite expansions do more than give me a few new levels to play or a couple new units and they also have to work.

As much as I love Dawn of War they fumbled the ball in every single expansion. Winter Assault tried to give the player a whole new race but they were broken and dominated all of the originals if played by even a half-competent player. Dark Crusade was, depending on who you talk to, more broken than WA because the Necrons turned into the crazy strong race and the Guard turned into the wussy instant death race. Not only that but there were some blatant and easily exploitable bugs which ruined the online play (not that the online play worked that well, they never got ranks quite working). Finally, Soulstorm managed to balance the races as well as I could ask but the sheer number of bugs, many of them enormous game breaking bugs, and the fact that many were never resolved and those that were resolved were patched something like 9 months after release.

EDIT: Oh, and Age of Empires 2 has the absolute best mapmaking system ever. Randomly generated maps with a theme like "Team Islands" which creates two separate large islands for teams to start on. It may sound simple but the other day I was playing and it created a lake in the middle of my team's island which was amazing because it created a perfectly protected fishing zone for uninterrupted food supplies.

 

[Proteus214]

I think that expansions are good for certain significant design elements that may have been discovered far too late in initial development that would make for a great experience without too many core engine changes. For example, some game is about to ship and one of the designers suddenly comes up with two new classes playable classes that can be added to the game that would change much of the way the game works and the dynamics for the story. If you can justify $40-50 worth of content with changes of that type, then I think it would be worth pursuing (of course this is from a game dev perspective).

 

[Count_de_Monet]

As you might have guessed, I've always favored expansions which improve on the multiplayer gameplay. Expanded offline campaigns and added units are fun, however, I find myself really getting into using those new units when I'm pitted against another person. Against even the craftiest AI players I can generally still follow an old strategy and win in many expansions.

Company of Heroes: Opposing fronts really wowed me when it came out because other than a few exploits it felt very balanced and the two new factions had to be played very differently. The British, especially, blew me away because you could move the production trucks around and essentially abandon your original base area.

 

[supersplash]

TL;DR

 

[L4Y Duke]

I recently started playing around with Age of Empires 2 again and I realized how much fun could be had even though it lacks a bit of control and my micro skills are a bit rusty. Then I installed Conquerors and I was shocked how much good stuff was added. They added 5 new civilizations, a number of new map types, a new system of map creation (you could choose by real world geographic location), new game modes, and even made the AI a little smarter in certain situations.

This made me think of some of my favorite all time expansions over the years.

Frozen Throne, while it may not have felt like much of an expansion right out of the box, completely changed Warcraft 3's online play for me. It gave me new options, some amazing niche units, and a new campaign which while a bit wonky was a great idea (the hero campaign instead of base building). FT is also when the custom games started to really pick up so I was playing plenty of tower defenses and hero maps.

The original Command & Conquer expansions were completely insane. They took a game which was taxed me at the time (and still taxes me in certain ways) and threw in bonus levels where the margin between winning and losing could be a single soldier's death. I don't remember a lot of units being added, but the missions were such a challenge it hardly mattered.

What makes an expansion good, in my opinion, isn't necessarily the amount of new content but the way it changes the original game. Most of my favorite expansions do more than give me a few new levels to play or a couple new units and they also have to work.

As much as I love Dawn of War they fumbled the ball in every single expansion. Winter Assault tried to give the player a whole new race but they were broken and dominated all of the originals if played by even a half-competent player. Dark Crusade was, depending on who you talk to, more broken than WA because the Necrons turned into the crazy strong race and the Guard turned into the wussy instant death race. Not only that but there were some blatant and easily exploitable bugs which ruined the online play (not that the online play worked that well, they never got ranks quite working). Finally, Soulstorm managed to balance the races as well as I could ask but the sheer number of bugs, many of them enormous game breaking bugs, and the fact that many were never resolved and those that were resolved were patched something like 9 months after release.

EDIT: Oh, and Age of Empires 2 has the absolute best mapmaking system ever. Randomly generated maps with a theme like "Team Islands" which creates two separate large islands for teams to start on. It may sound simple but the other day I was playing and it created a lake in the middle of my team's island which was amazing because it created a perfectly protected fishing zone for uninterrupted food supplies.

I actually have to go with the reverse of what you said there. I consider the Dawn of War expansions better in terms of quality than the original C&C ones. (by that, I mean the ones for C&C and Red Alert 1)

All those ones did was add disjointed single missions, new maps and (sometimes) new units. Westwood didn't start making good expansions until Tiberian Sun: Firestorm, where they at least added plenty of units, and two new campaigns.

Dawn of War, on the other hand, has always added plenty of new features. Each one adds at least one new faction, new campaigns (The shift from Winter Assault's standard linear one to Dark Crusade's Risk-esque one was truly something to remember.

I think the main difference here is that you prefer expansions that do not ruin the gameplay experience that is the main game, which quite often results in nothing more than a small addition that doesn't affect the main formula, whilst I prefer ones that aren't afraid to experiment with bold new additions that offer a new experience in an old game. It may end up broken, but the risk is worth taking.

 

[Count_de_Monet]

*snip*

I actually have to go with the reverse of what you said there. I consider the Dawn of War expansions better in terms of quality than the original C&C ones. (by that, I mean the ones for C&C and Red Alert 1)

All those ones did was add disjointed single missions, new maps and (sometimes) new units. Westwood didn't start making good expansions until Tiberian Sun: Firestorm, where they at least added plenty of units, and two new campaigns.

Dawn of War, on the other hand, has always added plenty of new features. Each one adds at least one new faction, new campaigns (The shift from Winter Assault's standard linear one to Dark Crusade's Risk-esque one was truly something to remember.

I think the main difference here is that you prefer expansions that do not ruin the gameplay experience that is the main game, which quite often results in nothing more than a small addition that doesn't affect the main formula, whilst I prefer ones that aren't afraid to experiment with bold new additions that offer a new experience in an old game. It may end up broken, but the risk is worth taking.

The only new race that I felt was truly experimental was the Necrons because they felt so much different from any of the others. Sure, you didn't play the Eldar like you played the Orks or the Tau but the Necrons were a whole different ballgame. And Soulstorm was even less experimental; the Sisters of Battle had their morale focused battle with hard hitting AV and the Dark Eldar were a bit more fragile but with more punch and speed but they just didn't give me anything that felt so different.

What I focused more on in C&C was the sheet difficulty of the set piece missions they created and that it forced you to use your units more efficiently than in any level from the original release. You had to rethink the way you played and create more intricate strategies to deal with what was being thrown at you so that even though the game didn't change much the way I utilized what it gave me changed.

The difference between Supreme Commander and Forged Alliance is rather trivial by comparison. Sure, they overhauled the resource system and added a new faction but it was a fairly unimaginative expansion. I loved it beyond words for no other reason than the easier to grasp resourcing and cheaper/quicker tier advancing but it really embodies the "Trivial changes that don't harm the original gameplay" comment.

EDIT: Also, I'm just focusing on RTS's because they are my favorite genre. With all the DLC out there these days games like Fallout 3 are taking expansions to a new level even though I'm not playing them I recognize the change in expansions.