Please make your expansion's story fit within the main one

[Bryy]

I disagree. I hate unfinished stories. I want the main game to be solid and complete, with no holes to be filled by expansions. In fact, I also dislike that the new areas are totally separated like in an extra episode.

 

 

What I really think an expansion should be is a game expansion, not a game completion or adition. expansion should give new areas that fits the game world, should have new characters, new missions, new objects, new classes, new races and new quests. Expansions should add new features on top of the original game to make the replay a totally new experience. But in no case the expansion should be filling gaps. Expansions should be an extra ingredient for the pizza so it tastes different, not adding a new ingredient because before it was tasteless.

 

If the expansion brings 5 new characters, with their own quests, their own items, their own dialogs in the main story, new romances, interjections with older party members and all this stuff, then it's good. I'd play again with a new party made of those new members. Even more if this is complemented with new areas, new quest, new items and new customization parameters. Having a continuation like ToB won't make me play the game again. Having two separated areas like TotSC, will make me load an old game.

 

One of the things I most hated of ToB is that the "Equipment" was in watcher's keep. Everything else in the game was pointless except for one or two things. One visit to Watcher's keep and you could scrap almost any non consumable item in the game. An expansion should add this equipment all around the game world so when you play again you find new stuff.

Ironically, what you just described would be what you said you don't want DLC to be.

[rjshae]

 

There are other scenarios. Consider the funding for the current release: roughly $4M. If it sells an additional 20,000 copies at $25: that is $500,000 total, then subtract taxes and fees. Is that enough of a success? What if it sells 500,000 copies, but over the course of a decade and most of it at a significantly reduced cost. Will that fund the expansion? As a game it doesn't have to 'bomb' as you put it; it just has to fail to find an expanded market in the short term. The game then remains a niche product that may have a devoted fan following. At that point a Kickstarter may be appropriate, assuming Obsidian is still interested.

 

Point taken, but the last sentence is what worries me. What I gathered from the Obsidian interviews is that they want to make this in to a successful franchise. Now did they mean that they want it to find a healthy market(beyond kickstarter), or simply satisfying the people who kickstarted it so they can go another round (sequel/exp). I guess it's a question of if they have ambition to make a big studio out of Obsidian or if they are fine with getting paychecks for making games they love(?).

 

I could see them making different styles of games based on the PoE world setting, like a single character sandbox and/or a MMORPG. Or they could produce games in a different genre, such as sci-fi, with a modified version of the PoE rules. They would already have the core code base written and debugged, so it should significantly reduce development costs.

[Hassat Hunter]

like a single character sandbox and/or a MMORPG.

*tries to stare you to dead with hatred*

[Fluff]

I really wouldn't want this.. that's just essentially DLC.

I want an actual expansion, there's nothing wrong with expanding onto the story in the expansion.. in fact that's the best thing they could do. However, flat out leaving open ended plot holes just for the sake of making more money off an expansion? Please..no, I don't want Obsidian to be the new EA.

 

An expansion in concept should be an entirely new story in an entirely new area, with story added into the expansion that connects them together logically instead of something standalone. So like (generic example) at the start of the new expansion a cataclysmic event destroys a large mass of land that previously was unreachable but now that it is open holds threats that can make their way to the original area.

 

TL;DR basically, there's a very fine line between connecting a story and blatant DLC money grabbing. Please, for the love of god no holes for the sake of making me pay for answers later.

[Frenzy-kun]

 

I disagree. I hate unfinished stories. I want the main game to be solid and complete, with no holes to be filled by expansions. In fact, I also dislike that the new areas are totally separated like in an extra episode.

 

 

What I really think an expansion should be is a game expansion, not a game completion or adition. expansion should give new areas that fits the game world, should have new characters, new missions, new objects, new classes, new races and new quests. Expansions should add new features on top of the original game to make the replay a totally new experience. But in no case the expansion should be filling gaps. Expansions should be an extra ingredient for the pizza so it tastes different, not adding a new ingredient because before it was tasteless.

 

If the expansion brings 5 new characters, with their own quests, their own items, their own dialogs in the main story, new romances, interjections with older party members and all this stuff, then it's good. I'd play again with a new party made of those new members. Even more if this is complemented with new areas, new quest, new items and new customization parameters. Having a continuation like ToB won't make me play the game again. Having two separated areas like TotSC, will make me load an old game.

 

One of the things I most hated of ToB is that the "Equipment" was in watcher's keep. Everything else in the game was pointless except for one or two things. One visit to Watcher's keep and you could scrap almost any non consumable item in the game. An expansion should add this equipment all around the game world so when you play again you find new stuff.

Ironically, what you just described would be what you said you don't want DLC to be.

 

What? I don't remember saying much about DLCs. DLC is a format type. I don't care about if the content is on CD or is downloadable. An expansion is aditional content, and if it's downloadable it's a DLC, that's it.

 

What I don't support is removed content as expansion (I don't care if it's burnt in a CD or as DLC), but new content should be new (or old content that was scrapped due to resource constrains, not because they wanted to make extra cash).

 

The thing I am saying, a expansion should be like that. Expanding the game, not expanding the campaign. What most of you are asking is a sequel, not an expansion. And let me tell you, the thing I hated the most is that throne of baal was an expansion instead of a new game. That was not an expansion. That was what was supposed to be a brand new game made into a expansion.

 

If you really want a sequel, then ask for the sequel, not make a half baked sequel sold as an expansion. At least that's my point of view. If you desire to continue the story then answer should be: no, I don't want expansions, focus your strenghts in the sequel and make it compatible with my character.

[ReyVagabond]

 

 

There are other scenarios. Consider the funding for the current release: roughly $4M. If it sells an additional 20,000 copies at $25: that is $500,000 total, then subtract taxes and fees. Is that enough of a success? What if it sells 500,000 copies, but over the course of a decade and most of it at a significantly reduced cost. Will that fund the expansion? As a game it doesn't have to 'bomb' as you put it; it just has to fail to find an expanded market in the short term. The game then remains a niche product that may have a devoted fan following. At that point a Kickstarter may be appropriate, assuming Obsidian is still interested.

 

Point taken, but the last sentence is what worries me. What I gathered from the Obsidian interviews is that they want to make this in to a successful franchise. Now did they mean that they want it to find a healthy market(beyond kickstarter), or simply satisfying the people who kickstarted it so they can go another round (sequel/exp). I guess it's a question of if they have ambition to make a big studio out of Obsidian or if they are fine with getting paychecks for making games they love(?).

 

I could see them making different styles of games based on the PoE world setting, like a single character sandbox and/or a MMORPG. Or they could produce games in a different genre, such as sci-fi, with a modified version of the PoE rules. They would already have the core code base written and debugged, so it should significantly reduce development costs.

 

Just because a game is a niche product may not be a bad thing.

 

Lets say, from now on, all PoE game, are all Kickstarted, They are funded, Obsidian substract taxes, and the rest goes into production.

Then they work, can pay for X amout of time, so they work and work to please the backers, they beta the game with us in mind.

 

Then they put it on sale, icing on the top. any money they make outside of the kickstart is done from a finished product (with some luck).

 

Next they do a kickstart again, if they flop, they fire a bunch of people, and try to pitch another game to a publisher.

if not, the they keep working, insted of beeing suported by a publisher, its suported by "pre purchases".

 

This reminds me that we the playerbase can help fund something we want istead of something like "AE" wants to sells us.

 

like an artist in the renaissance period that works for a noble, now we are paying this artist "or company Obsidian", to crate somethig for "our colective taste" more or less.

Time will tell.

 

The only thing i can say if they make a Good Game, ill have no problem with Kickstarting another project. or pre purchasing something 2-1 year in advance.

[Lephys]

Yeah, the term "DLC" has gotten a really undeserved connotation now, just because of precedent. Like, if a bunch of big companies started cooking meals and burning them, but burnt meals was all they offered, "cooking" or "meals" would suddenly be a bad thing (as if there were no non-burnt ones in existence).

 

DLC is just content that you download. It can be a perfectly legit expansion, or it can be horse armor. The fact that it costs money and can be downloaded does not make it somehow bad, or instantly "money-grabbing" on the developer's part.

 

Also, continuing a story with expansion-type content was a perfectly viable and oft-used thing well before DLC became the norm (before we even had/used the internet at all, really). It is in no way some kind of cop-out. You can only make so much game in one go. Whether or not additional content is an afterthought has nothing to with the fact that it's provided/sold as DLC, and everything to do with the particular design of the content in question.

[Jarrakul]

Lephys, I could kiss you right now. This is a point I've been trying to make to a number of people for years now. Yes, there's bad DLC out there, but it has nothing to do with it being DLC and everything to do with the content just being bad. Expansion packs are sometimes bad. Base games are sometimes bad. Yes, DLC is sometimes bad. But somehow people just seem to remember the freaking horse armor and assume that all DLC is equally inane.

 

However, I do agree that we shouldn't have a chunk carved out of the plot for the expansion. That's not a DLC-specific problem, but it is bad.

[Lephys]

This is a point I've been trying to make to a number of people for years now.

Heh. It's a common thing, nowadays. I don't know why it's so prevalent. Assumption. You point out something like "even if literally every piece of DLC that ever got released, ever, was horrible and crappy and just a money-grabbing afterthought, that still wouldn't change the fact that the very nature of DLC is not begetting the badness," and people act like you're crazy. Like that doesn't make any sense or something. "What? But it's NEVER NOT-HAPPENED!" Annnd? *sigh*

 

Annnnywho. I just don't get it, to be honest. I can't blame people for not really thinking about it. But then, when it gets pointed out, how do you just pretend it's false?

 

But yeah, there are plenty of bad things that don't need to be done with the expansion, regardless. However, so long as it's just an actual expansion upon the fully-created original game, in whatever form, it'll be fine. Whether it directly continues the story, or is set 100 years in the future with all different characters, or is on the other side of the planet, or under the ocean, or is a friggin' prequel for that matter. It's still all expanding the original game. Whether or not that expansion is good must be judged on its own. It has nothing to do with its existence as a digitally distributed extra component to the game.

[Fluff]

Annnnywho. I just don't get it, to be honest. I can't blame people for not really thinking about it. But then, when it gets pointed out, how do you just pretend it's false?

 

I think I can answer this.

As you mentioned, by the very definition of what DLC is it isn't bad; DLC is just a medium for obtaining content.

The issue isn't so much DLC's fault but what companies have done with it. When I think DLC I think of things like Jarrakul's example of horse armor, or intentional plot holes/cut content for the sake of making it later and charging.

 

So I guess when I (and many others) say DLC what we really mean is closer to.. DLC-model? I can think of many great expansions that did exactly what the name implies..expanded the game some significant amount.. but I can't with DLC.

 

I'm actually completely fine with DLC, if a few months after the games released the devs have enough time and funds to release a large pack of new portraits for the races for example that would be awesome, it's optional unobtrusive side content which I see no issue with, and I don't care if the expansion is physical or digital (although I'd love a physical box).

 

TL;DR to get to me point though.

I think what others fear isn't the expansion being literally DLC, but behaving like most DLC does.

I don't care how much or how little the expansion adds, I will buy it.. but I wouldn't want to see Obsidian go down the route of "New Expansion $29.99 so now you can get the rest of the story we purposefully didn't give you in the game you paid for."

Edited April 4, 2014 by Fluff

[Jarrakul]

Yeah, I get that. Honestly, I know exactly what people mean. It just bothers me to see all DLC being painted with that brush. I've been as angry about specific DLC as anyone out there, but I've also played DLCs that I thought were really good and worth every penny. Borderlands (1 & 2) has a great track record, for example, with some really fun and frequently hilarious extra content that takes real time and effort to get through. Dragon Age 2, for all people like to hate on it, had two awesome DLCs that added significantly to the game. The New Vegas DLCs were no slouches either, although their precise quality varied from uneven (Honest Hearts) to excellent (Old World Blues). None of them were as big as a (good) full expansion, but they were also cheaper, so that seems fair. So, given that there've been a number of DLCs that I really enjoyed, I don't really like it when people talk about DLCs being bad. Maybe that's just me being pedantic, but it feels important.

[Fluff]

So, given that there've been a number of DLCs that I really enjoyed, I don't really like it when people talk about DLCs being bad. Maybe that's just me being pedantic, but it feels important.

 

No, you're right and I completely understand. I'm guilty of stereotyping DLC at times, but I have to agree with you.

I've enjoyed some DLC as well, and as I mentioned I personally don't even mind smaller shallow DLC as long as it is done correctly.

 

Unfortunately though, things probably wont change.. DLC has already gotten such a bad name within the general public that I wouldn't expect it to change any time soon if ever.

[rjshae]

 

like a single character sandbox and/or a MMORPG.

*tries to stare you to dead with hatred*

 

Ah, so you're a child. Good to know.

[Jarrakul]

I'm not sure it makes one a child to strongly dislike sandbox RPGs and MMOs. Now, I'll admit, Hassat's response could probably have been more mature, but I'm not unsympathetic myself. Sandbox RPGs are fine, to my mind. Obsidian did well with New Vegas, I'd trust them to do another one if that's where they wanted to go. MMOs, on the other hand, kill companies. They're really big, really expensive, and almost all of them fail pretty quickly, leading to company collapse. The few that succeed make so much money that they come to define the company, or at least the IP, basically destroying it for anyone who doesn't want to play the MMO (yes, I am bitter about the lack of Warcraft 4, why do you ask?). So I can see what Hassat would be upset at the suggestion, even if I think his response could have been more "this is why I think you're wrong" and less "I hate you."

Edited April 4, 2014 by Jarrakul

[Hassat Hunter]

But what would be the fun in responding totally serious...?

I did consider it... but that would just lead to pointless banter, so figured I better show how much I disagree with that this way

[Sarex]

Some people here can't take a joke it seems. What else is new, heh...

[rjshae]

Jokes are usually funny. Ah well.

Edited April 4, 2014 by rjshae

[Lephys]

TL;DR to get to me point though.

I think what others fear isn't the expansion being literally DLC, but behaving like most DLC does.

I don't care how much or how little the expansion adds, I will buy it.. but I wouldn't want to see Obsidian go down the route of "New Expansion $29.99 so now you can get the rest of the story we purposefully didn't give you in the game you paid for."

I understand that. It's not like I expect anyone to not be humanly impacted by a trend in the industry. However, in the end, it really doesn't produce any positive benefit at all to simply decide to associate the sheer label of "DLC" with "bad." The next time an awesome developer puts out totally legit additional content, distributes it digitally, and charges money for it, you've instantly got an unnecessary bias towards it, even though it's the thing you don't dislike and that you WANT all those other companies to do.

 

That, and like with the "purposely cutting content to later release as DLC" thing... it kinda makes you painfully skeptical about this, even when it's legit. I mean, how does the company prove to you that this extra stuff they're releasing was never ever going to be in the original game, ever, and that it wasn't just intentionally held back? Don't get me wrong... I know sometimes it's blatantly obvious it was part of the original plan, and was purposefully held back on and released like a week later. But, when the opposite happens, how do they prove they DIDN'T think of this 5 months ago, and just intentionally didn't spend an extra month putting it into the game in the first place, JUST because they planned, from the get-go, to milk it for DLC munnies?

 

It's just really a bad mindset to have that doesn't do anyone any good.

 

There's a really fine line between "I should be wary of DLC" and "DLC is pretty much just cheap, money-grubbing stuff now." Be wary of it, by all means. But the difference is always thinking "this could be good and legit; I don't automatically hate this particular item, yet, just because it's DLC."

 

The assumption never really accomplishes anything but hurting yourself. Because, if you simply judge on a case-by-case basis, you still avoid the crap DLC, but you don't end up negatively judging the devs who are doing things properly, and being all paranoid that they could've put something into the original game, or they just want extra money and it's probably not good quality (based on the actions and decisions of completely different developers/publishers).

 

It's not so much that such assumptions are that bad or destructive. It's just that they really don't do anything beneficial, at all. So, I simply encourage people to walk the fine line, instead of taking the easy/tempting route of just associating something like DLC with badness, just because it's happened before many times.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Lephys

[Bryy]

 

 

I disagree. I hate unfinished stories. I want the main game to be solid and complete, with no holes to be filled by expansions. In fact, I also dislike that the new areas are totally separated like in an extra episode.

 

 

What I really think an expansion should be is a game expansion, not a game completion or adition. expansion should give new areas that fits the game world, should have new characters, new missions, new objects, new classes, new races and new quests. Expansions should add new features on top of the original game to make the replay a totally new experience. But in no case the expansion should be filling gaps. Expansions should be an extra ingredient for the pizza so it tastes different, not adding a new ingredient because before it was tasteless.

 

If the expansion brings 5 new characters, with their own quests, their own items, their own dialogs in the main story, new romances, interjections with older party members and all this stuff, then it's good. I'd play again with a new party made of those new members. Even more if this is complemented with new areas, new quest, new items and new customization parameters. Having a continuation like ToB won't make me play the game again. Having two separated areas like TotSC, will make me load an old game.

 

One of the things I most hated of ToB is that the "Equipment" was in watcher's keep. Everything else in the game was pointless except for one or two things. One visit to Watcher's keep and you could scrap almost any non consumable item in the game. An expansion should add this equipment all around the game world so when you play again you find new stuff.

Ironically, what you just described would be what you said you don't want DLC to be.

 

What? I don't remember saying much about DLCs. DLC is a format type. I don't care about if the content is on CD or is downloadable. An expansion is aditional content, and if it's downloadable it's a DLC, that's it.

 

What I don't support is removed content as expansion (I don't care if it's burnt in a CD or as DLC), but new content should be new (or old content that was scrapped due to resource constrains, not because they wanted to make extra cash).

 

The thing I am saying, a expansion should be like that. Expanding the game, not expanding the campaign. What most of you are asking is a sequel, not an expansion. And let me tell you, the thing I hated the most is that throne of baal was an expansion instead of a new game. That was not an expansion. That was what was supposed to be a brand new game made into a expansion.

 

If you really want a sequel, then ask for the sequel, not make a half baked sequel sold as an expansion. At least that's my point of view. If you desire to continue the story then answer should be: no, I don't want expansions, focus your strenghts in the sequel and make it compatible with my character.

 

I'm not saying it should expand the campaign either.

 

It should ideally be a new story set within the confines of the main plot which furthers the story.

 

We can argue semantics all day, but you seem to be confusing what story is in order to justify your dislike of DLC. 

[Fluff]

 

TL;DR to get to me point though.

I think what others fear isn't the expansion being literally DLC, but behaving like most DLC does.

I don't care how much or how little the expansion adds, I will buy it.. but I wouldn't want to see Obsidian go down the route of "New Expansion $29.99 so now you can get the rest of the story we purposefully didn't give you in the game you paid for."

I understand that. It's not like I expect anyone to not be humanly impacted by a trend in the industry. However, in the end, it really doesn't produce any positive benefit at all to simply decide to associate the sheer label of "DLC" with "bad." The next time an awesome developer puts out totally legit additional content, distributes it digitally, and charges money for it, you've instantly got an unnecessary bias towards it, even though it's the thing you don't dislike and that you WANT all those other companies to do.

 

That, and like with the "purposely cutting content to later release as DLC" thing... it kinda makes you painfully skeptical about this, even when it's legit. I mean, how does the company prove to you that this extra stuff they're releasing was never ever going to be in the original game, ever, and that it wasn't just intentionally held back? Don't get me wrong... I know sometimes it's blatantly obvious it was part of the original plan, and was purposefully held back on and released like a week later. But, when the opposite happens, how do they prove they DIDN'T think of this 5 months ago, and just intentionally didn't spend an extra month putting it into the game in the first place, JUST because they planned, from the get-go, to milk it for DLC munnies?

 

It's just really a bad mindset to have that doesn't do anyone any good.

 

There's a really fine line between "I should be wary of DLC" and "DLC is pretty much just cheap, money-grubbing stuff now." Be wary of it, by all means. But the difference is always thinking "this could be good and legit; I don't automatically hate this particular item, yet, just because it's DLC."

 

The assumption never really accomplishes anything but hurting yourself. Because, if you simply judge on a case-by-case basis, you still avoid the crap DLC, but you don't end up negatively judging the devs who are doing things properly, and being all paranoid that they could've put something into the original game, or they just want extra money and it's probably not good quality (based on the actions and decisions of completely different developers/publishers).

 

It's not so much that such assumptions are that bad or destructive. It's just that they really don't do anything beneficial, at all. So, I simply encourage people to walk the fine line, instead of taking the easy/tempting route of just associating something like DLC with badness, just because it's happened before many times.

 

 

That's actually one of my bigger issues with the format of DLC in general. I'm not saying it has never happened in the form of a classical retail expansion, but DLC allows for much cheaper less-risk for a business to milk a game for cheap DLC. When I saw a boxed retail pc expansion with discs and booklets and whatnot there was much less reason to believe they'd go through such trouble just to screw you out of a few bucks.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with you though, because I completely understand where you are coming from and overall agree. It's just kind of the way humans work, stereotypes aren't just for people..when anything majorly behaves one way (or even if it doesn't and is believed to) it all gets that label. While I do agree with you like I said, I truly don't believe the average consumers attitude about DLC will ever change at this point because it's a) probably to late and b) most DLC still isn't giving people a reason to view it differently.

[Frenzy-kun]

 

 

 

I disagree. I hate unfinished stories. I want the main game to be solid and complete, with no holes to be filled by expansions. In fact, I also dislike that the new areas are totally separated like in an extra episode.

 

 

What I really think an expansion should be is a game expansion, not a game completion or adition. expansion should give new areas that fits the game world, should have new characters, new missions, new objects, new classes, new races and new quests. Expansions should add new features on top of the original game to make the replay a totally new experience. But in no case the expansion should be filling gaps. Expansions should be an extra ingredient for the pizza so it tastes different, not adding a new ingredient because before it was tasteless.

 

If the expansion brings 5 new characters, with their own quests, their own items, their own dialogs in the main story, new romances, interjections with older party members and all this stuff, then it's good. I'd play again with a new party made of those new members. Even more if this is complemented with new areas, new quest, new items and new customization parameters. Having a continuation like ToB won't make me play the game again. Having two separated areas like TotSC, will make me load an old game.

 

One of the things I most hated of ToB is that the "Equipment" was in watcher's keep. Everything else in the game was pointless except for one or two things. One visit to Watcher's keep and you could scrap almost any non consumable item in the game. An expansion should add this equipment all around the game world so when you play again you find new stuff.

Ironically, what you just described would be what you said you don't want DLC to be.

 

What? I don't remember saying much about DLCs. DLC is a format type. I don't care about if the content is on CD or is downloadable. An expansion is aditional content, and if it's downloadable it's a DLC, that's it.

 

What I don't support is removed content as expansion (I don't care if it's burnt in a CD or as DLC), but new content should be new (or old content that was scrapped due to resource constrains, not because they wanted to make extra cash).

 

The thing I am saying, a expansion should be like that. Expanding the game, not expanding the campaign. What most of you are asking is a sequel, not an expansion. And let me tell you, the thing I hated the most is that throne of baal was an expansion instead of a new game. That was not an expansion. That was what was supposed to be a brand new game made into a expansion.

 

If you really want a sequel, then ask for the sequel, not make a half baked sequel sold as an expansion. At least that's my point of view. If you desire to continue the story then answer should be: no, I don't want expansions, focus your strenghts in the sequel and make it compatible with my character.

 

I'm not saying it should expand the campaign either.

 

It should ideally be a new story set within the confines of the main plot which furthers the story.

 

We can argue semantics all day, but you seem to be confusing what story is in order to justify your dislike of DLC. 

 

I am saying just the opposite. I think there is a communication issue because I never said I dislike DLC. I dislike content to be removed in order to be sold appart, not DLC.

 

I believe that an expansion should make the game to grow in width, not in length. Now an extra ninth episode, not an extra 7.5 episode, but content around. New areas, yeah, that's cool. New quest, also. New NPCs, new side stories, new equipment, all is welcome. DLC or not. Sold by parts or as a whole. But I don't like as stated when they are selling me something as a new part of something that should be closed and tight. When someone tells me that the expansion contains some untold facts I feel cheated. For several reasons. The first one is why it has to tell me something untold in a story that it was supposed to be completed. Wasn't I supposed to have bought a complete game? Because the message says that it was uncomplete. Is it a brand new story telling me what happened after, or even before? Then, why are you selling me an expansion instead of a game? I just can think on two options: the story is totally improvised as an excuse to sell more, or they just don't want to work on a new game and they prefer to go cheap making an expansion. Both of them sounds bad to me.

 

It has been never a problem of DLC because I never said I dislike DLC. I am not sure if you are mistaking me with another person or that I don't explain myself properly. It's just my preference. I don't like the game to be expanded story wise because I want the game I buy to be a whole by itselft, no unresolved questions. I don't like to have to buy the expansion to answer the questions. I dislike the feeling of feeling forced to buy the expansion because the mere existance of that expansion makes me think that the original story or campaign was uncomplete. Even if those questions are created specially for the expansion and didn't exist in the original concept, when someone tells me "hey, buy this to know something I didn't tell you" my reaction is "why didn't you tell me?". I don't like this feeling and that is why I don't like expansions to extend in any sense the campaign of the original game.

 

Again, I have nothing agains DLCs, I have against expanding something that is supposed to be completed. If the main campaign has room to be expanded, then expand it in the main game, don't force me to buy an expansion to have the experience I was supposed to have at first.

[Bryy]

This is entirely your preference then, but has nothing to do with the game itself. 

I dislike the feeling of feeling forced to buy the expansion because the mere existance of that expansion makes me think that the original story or campaign was uncomplete. Even if those questions are created specially for the expansion and didn't exist in the original concept, when someone tells me "hey, buy this to know something I didn't tell you" my reaction is "why didn't you tell me?". I don't like this feeling and that is why I don't like expansions to extend in any sense the campaign of the original game.

[Lephys]

^ Yeah, unfortunately, Frenzy-kun, from an objective standpoint, there are only two possible ways in which the developers could satisfy your desires:

 

1) Work on the game forever, and never ever release it, because every time they thought of something extra, they'd have to delay the original game to put it in (extra races, locations, story, etc.) so as not to ever split the game into a primary game, then separate expansions.

 

2) Just never make any extra content for any games, ever. This would include sequels, if they expand upon anything from the previous game.

 

I'm not trying to judge you. It's unfortunate that you feel the need to buy expansions like that. I'm simply trying to point out that it isn't very feasible to expect them to somehow make sure you never feel that way. I'm not saying you are demanding that they do this or anything. It's just a for-what-it's-worth comment. Unless the original game includes the entire history and future of the entire fictional world, there's going to be something in the world that wasn't in the first one.

 

It's the same reason you eat only a portion of all the possible food in the world, every single night, for dinner. Maybe tonight you have a salad, and tomorrow night you have a sandwich. Why didn't you have the sandwich the previous night? Because you can only eat so much food at any given time. You can only cook so much different food in a 24-hour period, and any food you didn't get to cook must be cooked/eaten in a different session.

 

Same with a game. Or any story, really. That being said, there are many specific examples of story expansions being kinda gimmicky, and/or warranting the "why didn't you have this in the previous episode?" question. But, the sheer continuation of a story in any capacity is not a narrow enough criteria to actually specify what reasonably warrants that question and what doesn't.

[Bryy]

Yeah, if you want to buy that way, nobody here is saying that is wrong. Your money, your choice, your opinions.

 

Did you see Captain America 2? Or do you feel that is asking for $11 for a new story?

[Lephys]

Did you see Captain America 2? Or do you feel that is asking for $11 for a new story?

That film was pretty amazing, by the way. Just in case anyone was curious.