Your first paragraph you set up an analogy that assumes DLC or rocking chairs will be cranked out at lower quality. Not sure where your basis for this is and I reject this assumption. To steal a line from the promancers, just because some other companies have done a poor job doesn't mean that Obs will.
Nope. You're not processing my words a step at a time. You're skipping like 5 steps ahead and trying to correlate too many things at once. The rocking chair example wasn't directly speaking to the general competency of companies. It was speaking directly to my "assumption" that the creation of anything takes time and effort. I don't assume that objects falling from a greater height can reach greater speeds than those falling from a lesser height. It's simply true. You can't really assume something that's observably true is true, unless I guess you just don't know it's true but suspect it is, technically...
That's getting away from the point, though. What you don't realize, I think, is that you seem to be making the assumption that my point is "anything less than a huge expansion will be crap" or something. Which is strange, considering that I haven't even given any specific measurements or timeframes, so I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be assuming makes DLC bad. The relationship between the amount of time and effort spent on the content and the quality of the content is a real, measurable thing. Go back in time and undo my birth, and it remains so. My saying it doesn't make it true. I'm observing that it is true, then saying that to you, who doesn't seem to be observing the same thing.
They can make lesser DLCs. These can be good. However, the lesser they are, the less chance they have of being significant. Sure, plenty of folks like a fun weapon pack or something. Getting new stuff is always novel and exciting, to some extent. But we're comparing two options. I'd rather see new weapons AND a new area and chunk of story in which to utilize these new weapons. And I think pretty much anyone would agree with that. Between playing the entire same game over with just a couple of new weapons, or getting, say, new weapon TYPES (new weapons that are also not weapon-types that existed in the base game), with their own new mechanics/proficiencies, etc., which would you choose? You can't have both. If it takes them 1 month to just slap new weapons in, and 3 months to make the new weapon types, then doing the first would delay the second by 3 months.
So, I'm not saying that there's no possible little content that can be cool. But, the smaller you go, the less significant it becomes, and the less warranting of actual purchasable DLC it becomes. If it cost the dev team no time and manpower, then by all means, put all the fun DLC nibbles in that you want. However, if they're at all planning on doing a full expansion, or any piece of relatively MORE-substantial content, then tossing out little snacks here and there is pretty moot, as the time is better spent simply incorporating those snacks into the bigger chunk. It almost always works better when the DLC is larger and more substantial, due in large part to the fact that the teams are able to spend more time both designing AND implementing it. If you give them 3 days to make some DLC, you can't sincerely tell me it's going to be good, much less better than something that the same team could make in a whole month.
EDIT (forgot to touch on the rest of your rebuttal):
Second paragraph, you lead with there not being a time to quality but then follow with the quick and small stuff being not very well thought out. Again, I've already stated assuming it's good stuff, because who likes crap, and you've started from a default of assuming it's bad.
You're missing details. I lead with there not being a specific time below which quality is bad, and above which quality is good. Too little time always reduces quality. Obviously 1 second is not long enough to produce quality DLC. Two days is probably still not, but would at least be better than nothing. A month would allow for much higher quality. Now... would 73 years just result in an EQUAL improvement in quality? No. At some point, the quality gain drops off. Also, it depends on what it is, specifically, the DLC is supposed to be. However, the timeframe they have inherently constrains the scope of what the DLC can be. Does that make sense? If they have 1 week, then it HAS to be something piddly. It can't be a whole new companion, or an entire robust questline, because those things take longer than that. OR, it could be one of those things, but just REALLY crappy.
Third paragraph, more of the same, assuming big DLC will be of better quality than smaller and assuming the smaller stuff will be arbitrary weapons packs or whatever else. Why? Is this something Obsidian is known for that I don't recall?
Nowhere did I assume any of that. Since we're starting to get into super-technicalities of word choice here, the idea I attempted to state (whether or not it came across as this) is that big DLC CAN be of better quality than smaller DLC, and that the smaller you go, the less signficant or robust the content CAN be. All other factors remaining the same (same team, same amount of effort per-resource-unit of time and manpower), a DLC designed for 3 months is going to be better than one designed for only 2 weeks. It can be more significant within the scope of the game, more iterated upon and polished before it's deployed, etc. Time is basically a multiplier, up to an extent. That's just how human brains work in designing, and how pretty much anything works in terms of human craftsmanship.
You're acting as though there's no evidence or reasoning behind anything that I'm suggesting. And I'm sorry, but in this case, I cannot agree to disagree. I disagree with your disagreement. If someone says to me "If I walk across traffic here with my eyes closed, surely no harm will come to me," I'm not just going to say "Meh, I guess we can agree to disagree." That's just not who I am. I'm going to try to point out to them the things they're failing to observe.
I'm not telling you to think what I think, exactly. I'm encouraging you to consider the same factors that I'm considering. If you can deliver a response that takes into account observable factors and relationships, and STILL points out how it's entirely possible that what I'm saying is completely untrue, then I will gladly alter my current thinking on the matter in favor of your presented reasoning.
Edited by Lephys, 13 October 2017 - 09:08 AM.