Dragon Age 2

[Nepenthe]

What was bad about Leliana's Song?

Wondering a bit about that too. Was my favourite DLC, the only one where they actually tried to evolve the gameplay (and IMO succeeded). Warden's Keep was decent, Shale as well (but as a partof project 10 $ and thus essentially a part of the main game, and the discussion around it's DLC role is... mostly academic), but ostagar, golems etc. were simply not very good, and looked pretty obviously very low-budget. Awakening still confuses me, in a lot of ways I think that it's better than the main game, but it's also even more lacking in polish than said main game was.

Shadow Broker was nice if Shepard had previously romanced Liara, but otherwise there was not much point to it.

Well, I dunno, Shadow Broker plays a relatively important role in ME1, a crucial role in the ME1->ME2 comic storyline, and by the looks of it, sets up the scene for a critical point/twist in ME3... I was no liaramancer, but I found the story aspects of it quite interesting, as well.

[Azure79]

Leliana's Song was the best of the bunch, I don't have much to complain about other than I would have preferred it happened in Orlais with new areas and better content. It was a little boring going through the Denerim Marketplace, Arl of Denerim Estate and Dungeon yet again. It was ok, but not worth the money. I did like Sketch and Tug.

 

As for Shadow Broker, I liked how they tried new things with it. The car chase was nicely done. It controlled and played a lot better than I thought it would. I loved the following battle on the hotel/building balcony. It was nicely designed with a great view of the surrounding city as a background. Then the entire Shadow Broker ship sequence was great. The presentation throughout was excellent and it didn't feel like they rehashed anything to make a quick buck, but actually spent the time and energy to give players a satisfactory experience.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Azure79

[MrBrown]

What was bad about Leliana's Song?

 

What Azure79 said. I guess the quest itself wasn't that bad, but changing something that was supposed to have happened in a previously unvisited area to 100% reused areas was really offending, IMO.

[Gromnir]

btw, just so is clear, Gromnir is not particular bothered by dlc... and as we noted above, there ain't nothing particularly immoral or unethical 'bout the dlc schemes being used by ea/bio. if you don't like biowarian opportunism then don't purchase. however, folks like thorton (and others) will focus on our criticism rather than looking at actual point... which is an endemic issue 'round these parts. by arguing with thorton over minutiae it looks like Gromnir loathes dlc concept?

 

*shrug*

 

dlc is an opportunistic money-grab by developers and publishers, but that doesn't make it immoral or evil. as long as the core game bio releases continues to be worthy standalone products, then Gromnir gots 0 problem with bio dlc... but we can see why other folks is concerned, and one cannot help but envision a day when games ain't legit playable or complete without the dlc. we liked da:o, and shale enhanced da:o. if we did not like da:o, then we doubt that the inclusion o' shale, wardens keep, and any o' the other dlc knickknacks woulda' changed our mind 'bout da:o... the game were playable and enjoyable on its own merits, and the addition o' dlc only enhanced (or diminished) the da play experience for those who thought well enough o' da:o in the first place. we had similar feelings 'bout mass effect 2 dlc.

 

so far our two favorite dlc offerings from bio has been stone prisoner and shadow broker. we thought that both additions enhanced the respective games... but da:o don't fail w/o stone prisoner and me2 is viable w/o shadow broker. however, am admitting to feeling somewhat conflicted 'bout shale. is more o' a gut thing, but although all the shale material is tangential and unnecessary for the completion o' da:o, shale's character does Feel fully integrated and almost essential. we don't believe that shale dlc crosses the line, but we can see how others do see shale as an example o' developer and publisher gluttony and greed.

 

so, in spite o' the manner in which alan tries to paint the issue, dlc is an opportunistic and mercenary method for squeezing more dollars, pounds and sheckles outta the Average Gamer. is nothing noble or grand 'bout dlc, and it is very easy to see how dlc could become something pernicious and vulgar. nevertheless, developers is in the Business o' game development to make money, so we cannot fault them for finding new ways to make money from their efforts. as long as the core games is viable and robust w/o the dlc, then we got no genuine complaints (save for the obvious disingenuous o' some), but it is not hard to imagine an incomplete game being released to the public that is only capable o' resurrection through dlc. will the developer/publisher charge for such dlc? we shall have to wait and see.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

DLC is there to play on the percieved weaknesses of their customer base.

 

For example, why does a burger chain have super size meals for +60p? Or those little fried donuts? Or those tangy little chicken wings? Or a burger with a strange piece of Latvian peppered cheddar melted onto it? Because they percieve fast-food lovers to be greedy, processed-food dependent lard junkies, that's why. You could just have the basic, cheaper and equally filling Basic Burger Meal. But no, you have to have the little fired donuts too, after all they were only three copper pieces.

 

What is the percieved weakness of the gaming customer base? The tendency of gamers to be relentless completionists. A lot of gamers are. Hoarders. The DLC is like that little fried donut portion sprinkled with gaming crack. You don't need it, you know you don't need it but all the other romance junkies found out what happened to your favourite NPC and have that little magic item that gives you a +5% bonus to one of your powaz. SO YOU HAVE TO FREAKING WELL HAVE IT YES YOU MUST!!! IT'S ONLY FIVE DOLLARS!

 

The developers know this. How? They're gamers too. You think they don't fall for it? Of course they do.

 

The problem is choice. There are lots of games. For me now, games are like friendships, I've only got enough time and energy to manage a certain number meaningfully. So the DLC has to be good, which is where Bio has failed because although Watcher's Keep was OK and RtO was so-so but not awful none of it was compelling enough for me to develop a.... habit.

 

So remember, next time you click on that 'Buy DLC' tab, it's just a little portion of fried donuts in Burger Shack: sweet, only temporarily filling and when you think about it not really necessary. The only difference is that DLC won't increase your waist size.

[Volourn]

"The tendency of gamers to be relentless completionists. A lot of gamers are."

 

Nope. That's ahrdcore gamers.

 

The tendency of *most* gamers are not to actually finish games AT ALL.

 

R00fles!

 

P.S. I also don't feel sorry for those who are so foolish to need to have everything or complete everything. I just laugh at their dumbness.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Volourn

[Tale]

Shadow Broker was nice if Shepard had previously romanced Liara, but otherwise there was not much point to it.

Shadow Broker was good even if Liara hadn't been present. I can't stand her and I liked it.

[Rosbjerg]

The only difference is that DLC won't increase your waist size.

 

Actually a recent Danish/Canadian study showed a direct link between playing computer games and perceived hunger (i.e on average the playing subjects ate more than those who solved equations/read/played boardgames) - so DLC actually do increase waist size.

[Nepenthe]

The only difference is that DLC won't increase your waist size.

 

Actually a recent Danish/Canadian study showed a direct link between playing computer games and perceived hunger (i.e on average the playing subjects ate more than those who solved equations/read/played boardgames) - so DLC actually do increase waist size.

Yeah, I only eat candy when I'm gaming.

[Orogun01]

And I began a new diet called "20 push ups for every time you get hungry" works wonders.

[Hassat Hunter]

I don't believe this actually happens very often. Post release support is often busy enough fixing actual issues. Patching in content that has been removed from the game is a lot of work, and requires additional QA. How common is this actually?

Not very. But how common is it *at all* deleted content gets re-integrated?

The point I was trying to make is that it seems to upset you that a developer makes available additional content for the game and then charges for it, while functionally this is no different than if the content was never released to you if you decide to not purchase the DLC. You stated in a post that the difference in other games is that the content remained cut.

I am not sure how big this "technical issue" was, but yes. It does sound like there wasn't really much needed to be done to get Shale to working condition.

Imagine this;

There is a minor technical issue with NPC X. The game gets delayed 10 days, some more tweaking here and there. Fixed. Everyone happy and the NPC is in.

There is a minor technical issue with NPC X. The game gets shipped regardless, crudely cut (think KOTOR2). Hardly good press for the dev if found out.

There is a minor technical issue with NPC X. The game gets shipped regardless, and they fix this in the days between gold and release, which they refused to put back. Oh, and they ask cash for this too. That's Shale in DA:O. And sorry, it sounds like moneygrabbing to me.

Maybe the "issue" was far more severe than this, but that's all we got IIRC, so that's kind of what we have to work with.

But if you had a choice, are you saying you wouldn't rather BioWare release finished versions of the content cut from the original KOTOR?

Well, tell me what was all cut. Since yes, I think asking money for Deadeye on Manaan or the cut Carth-ending would be the pinacle of moneygrabbing. Can't really see the Dantooine Temple thingie done. Sleyheron as a whole though... that could work. Hardly cut content though if so much new stuff needs to be added then is it?

The DLC for Sebastian isn't finished either, and it's not unlike other DLC content. So no, there is no "DLC before a Gold version." I'm not even entirely sure what that means. As for whether or not

But why work on it before GOLD is done. That's not how it worked with DA:O even was it? Then you were claiming Shale and Watcher etc. were made between the time Gold Edition was shipped and it hit retail. That's not even the case here?

And then you wonder why some of us think it strange it's not developed for the maingame but *already* seperate DLC?

I don't quite follow. What changes are you referring to? Content for Dragon Age 2 has been locked down for some time.

Not quite content, stuff that works not entirely as intended, so has to be modified, but might not be limited to code (ie. Technical).

There were quite the number of NPC in team detection fault issues in Orgins, and even more in Awakening for example. Or was it intended INF was raised or lowered for NPC's back in camp?

I wonder if that's some kind of issue with how DA applies said boosts and penalties or just issues in the dialogues, like how these appear in the KOTOR's by someone making an error in the .dlg file.

"Got it's own?" Split? I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. If I made it seem as though they were completely disjointed then I apologize. Though QA is a bit more "project general." It's more free flowing, and in actuality providing QA for DLC is actually easier to integrate if the game itself still has a lot of QA on it.

Hmmm... if the game is long, and has many variables (multiple choices for quests which have effects later being a primary one) wouldn't it be worse.

Say, DA:O got QA for main till Gold, then it split on main and DLC. Result; Less bugs in Gold (yes, shockingly that's less), but less time for them to work on patch #1, since they need to be splitched between patch #1 and DLC.

Now, with DA2 apparently Sebastian is made along. So that would mean split QA before Gold even, resulting in the likely possibility of more bugs in Gold, so Retail has more issues out of the box. Time for patch #1 depends on wheter Sebastian is done, and any eventual new DLC.

Add in ME's, other possible projects and their DLC (or does DA QA is seperated from ME? I don't think so, but what do I know?) and you get like 10 projects at once to split people between instead of just 3 projects (ME3, DA2 and the possible third game).

Clear enough now?

QAing projects like Golems of Amgarrak or Lair of the Shadow Broker is more difficult because there's significantly less overlap, and it's much more problematic to pull additional eyes for verifying and reproducing issues.

Though I would assume the base code is free from issues, after a few patches, so you hardly need as much QA there as the main game, just focusing on the individual module's scripts, levelbuilding and choices etc.

No fear of the weapon-gets-stuck-when-shooting-issue the main game had (just making this up, but I hardly doubt it never happened during ME's production) when the game's basis was still being worked on. Since I hardly doubt DLC touches that deep a level. Well, unless it suddenly includes zero-G or so when the main never did, but I haven't seen DLC's add such new stuff yet.

In fact, releasing a game with future DLC plans without Day One DLC is actually more risky, because you will be significantly less able to properly assess the DLC delivery system without actually having proper, finished content to run through it. Delivering DLC at a later date is futile if it turns out that your delivery system has huge issues (and DAO's had enough issues as it was) that you weren't able to properly find before release, and it is much more difficult to do anything about it because post-release programming support is more complicated (and has less resources) to integrate than pre-release support. Post-release support is also effectively more expensive.

Good point here though. But that's just more reason to properly test DLC's working rather than have full Day 0 DLC ready and working.

Making an entire fully functional level does show that a leveleditor work properly, but you hardly need to do it just to make that assessement.

Not sure why programming suddenly becomes more expensive after release though. Don't EA finance patches? Or is that just not enough to make up? Or is this some weird "pre-support" gets financed with purchases while "post-support" doesn't, while they are actually the same value and path the way for new titles and add-ons, and are supposed to be budget in already anyways?

*confused*

What do you mean by "100% separate?"

As in, the entire team, from levelbuilder, programmer, QA, the whole club, being 100% not involved in vanilla DA2. As you already confirmed that not the case, my point has only become stronger, that without this DLC more work could have done by said people to improve the base-game, but instead Bio is sleezing people away from it for the 'next project' already.

For example, why does a burger chain have super size meals for +60p?

I always find the people fools who don't take these offers and purchase 'small' or 'medium'.

I mean 1,40 for 0.5 liter drink or 1,50 for 0.75 liter drink. You do the math. If you get twice the fries for 1.2x the money why not take the biggest offer (if you can eat it, which I can, so I don't need to buy a second burger etc.)

DLC doesn't have the same price/quantity ratio as these supersize menu's have though.

Same with the oddness that 0.5 liter cola in suppers is MORE expensive than 1.5 liter bottles. Crazy.

Anyways... what were we talking about again?

[Rosbjerg]

Hassat, I'm beginning to wonder if you are hired by developers - because your aggressive arguments are actually beginning to make me defend and like DLCs.

 

Anyways... what were we talking about again?

 

[moderator mode]Also - this discussion has gone in circles for some time.. if you wish to discuss it further, I suggest making a new thread.[/moderator mode]

[Walsingham]

I always find the people fools who don't take these offers and purchase 'small' or 'medium'.

I mean 1,40 for 0.5 liter drink or 1,50 for 0.75 liter drink. You do the math. If you get twice the fries for 1.2x the money why not take the biggest offer (if you can eat it, which I can, so I don't need to buy a second burger etc.)

DLC doesn't have the same price/quantity ratio as these supersize menu's have though.

Same with the oddness that 0.5 liter cola in suppers is MORE expensive than 1.5 liter bottles. Crazy.

Anyways... what were we talking about again?

 

...Because no human being needs to consume that many calories in a single sitting? Eat it or throw it straight in the trash, it's waste.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think BioWare should adopt a new bussiness practice with Dragon Age. If you DONT pay us, we'll keep releasing boring fantasy drivel instead of anything that would actually be interesting.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Kaftan Barlast

[Rosbjerg]

I think BioWare should adopt a new bussiness practice with Dragon Age. If you DONT pay us, we'll keep releasing boring fantasy drivel instead of anything that would actually be interesting.

 

I'd preorder it..

 

New thread here.