Examples of DLC done Good/BAD

[Doclector]

Y'know what, fuck y'all rules, I wanna get the bad out of the way. While I'm at it, I won't bother covering obvious stuff that people have already said.

Bad DLC:

Saints row the third, not for any DLC in particular, most of those are actually pretty good, fun missions, and I fail to remember a single point in the "Trouble with clones" DLC where I didn't have a huge grin on my face. Of course, there's the costume/weapon DLCs, but to be honest, I have no problem with those. They were released in such a way that I don't think it was planned beforehand, they're fairly cheap, and there's no way you NEED the things supplied in them. No, it's the way the Season Pass DLCs handled their new weapons/costumes/vehicles. This shit is important to a game like Saints Row the third. It thrives on being able to go apeshit and cause random chaos. Handing me laser guns, chainsaws, or a gun the fires bees, and then telling me "Hey, you wanna use those again? Tough. It's mission exclusive" That fucking sucks. Especially as there's barely anything in the main campaign like that.


Good DLC:

Krieg the psycho from borderlands 2.

Lemme tell y'all a story. I played borderlands 2. I played it as Axton, as I fucking love being able to build turrets and stuff, and I always lean towards ARs in games anyways. I had fun, played through to killing jack (Oh come on, that's hardly a spoiler, he's the bad guy) and that was it. I didn't really have the motivation to mop up the side missions or to play the DLC. So I left it. Occasionally I'd play it again, thinking about getting the season pass, and I'd lose interest and put it off.

Then, on a whim, with some extra MS points, I got krieg.

Where other character DLCs just give you an extra skin, some new lines, maybe a weapon or attack if you're lucky, Krieg made you play the game in a completely different way. Gone was the encouragement to go to cover, in with being rewarded for getting hurt, the rewards increasing with the risk of death. It felt great, it felt like this was the character I'd always wanted to play borderlands as. I liked playing with him so much that I barely stopped playing BL2 for three weeks, which for someone like me who mixes up games quite a lot, verges on a record. I bought the Season pass DLC, which is similiarly brilliant, but I wouldn't have enjoyed it anywhere near as much without the whole game being given this new lease of life.

You may say it should've been in at the beginning, but for one, I don't believe they had that idea early enough for it to be bought to fruition, and two, Krieg isn't a first runthrough character. People may have gotten frustrated at krieg if they played him at launch with little knowledge of BL2's mechanics. People may have dismissed him altogether. It was a good move, and at 800 points, it's not one that breaks the bank either.

 

[Caiphus]

A lot of people in this thread are concentrating on the cost-benefit side of DLC. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I always thought that if DLC wasn't worth it (by being too expensive or not offering enough new content) then I just wouldn't buy it. See: Horse Armour in Oblivion.

I suppose that does make it bad DLC, although I wouldn't necessarily feel ripped off. I just wouldn't have bought it. Case in point: Crusader Kings II. I've only bought the ruler designer DLC because that's all I want. The songs and shields stuff just doesn't cut the mustard for me, so I didn't get it.

I do, however, feel ripped off by Day-One DLC. That makes me feel, even when I don't buy it, that I haven't been given the full game that I paid for. Which kinda sucks.

EDIT: Especially if I'm paying the Aus-NZ premium for the full game anyway. Paying for disc-locked DLC on top of that takes the piss.

 

[The_Echo]

Good DLC:

Expansion packs (Shivering Isles, the Borderlands DLC), and anything that's free. It's a significant amount of content, or free shit. Totally fine by me.

Bad DLC:

Prince of Persia 2008's Epilogue DLC and Asura's Wrath's Part IV DLC.

Locking the true ending behind a paywall is just a bad time. Though I don't complain about Asura's Wrath because I got the base game for cheap so even with Part IV I paid less than the game cost at launch.

Shivering Isles isn't DLC. It was the last of what we used to call "expansion packs".

I downloaded Shivering Isles. Are you telling me it isn't downloadable content?

DLC is a new way to deliver expansion packs. They don't stop being that just because they aren't on a disc. Not all DLCs are expansion packs, obviously, but expansion packs can be DLC.

 

[rob_simple]

The only DLC I have ever bought was the Borderlands 4 pack and, even though I never played Underdome Riot, I still consider it absolutely worth the money for the other 3 because they were absolutely brilliant and had an impressive amount of longevity, (House of the Ned in particular).

Actually, I'd say the best DLC, of all, is like House of the Ned or Far Cry: Blood Dragon: an expansion using the engine of the game you have but with everything cranked up to eleven.

As for the worst, the DLC I hate with an absolute passion is the stuff developers/publishers now think they can charge us for that we used to get as standard. For example, the additional suits in Arkham City: they added nothing to the game, they were just re-skins, and back in the day you'd have unlocked them from collecting Riddler Trophies --hell, Ratchet & Clank still does alternate skin unlocks as a reward system-- but now it's like, 'nope, if you want them you gotta pay for them. Why? Because go fuck yourself.'

I was even more pissed off because when I was toying with the idea of getting the one I wanted --the animated series suit-- I discovered I couldn't buy them individually, they wanted me to spend 12 quid on a bunch of suits I didn't even recognise; most of which looked supremely shitty. Fuck that.

 

[rob_simple]

Asura's Wrath's Part IV DLC.

Locking the true ending behind a paywall is just a bad time. Though I don't complain about Asura's Wrath because I got the base game for cheap so even with Act IV I paid less than the game cost at launch.

See, I still disagree with all the people who say they locked away the true ending.

As far as I'm concerned, I've seen the ending of Asura's Wrath, after Asura and his broheim tore that demon a new one; the bit after was just the typical cliffhanger, 'oh here we again' stuff I've come to expect in books, film, TV and just about everything else nowadays. Instead, I sprang for the Ryu and Akuma DLC instead because that just sounded awesome.

Unless, was it actually confirmed that Capcom did their favourite trick of literally chopping off a part of the game they'd already made?

Because then, yeah, that's a dick move.

 

[k3v1n]

DLC done good? GTA IV: TBOGT and TLAD
DLC done bad? COD map packs

 

[Jack Joe Tip Toe]

Good DLC: Most Rockstar games. Borderlands. Some of the Mass Effect DLC.

Bad DLC: ALL Capcom games. Just Cause 2.

 

[Kyber]

I'll keep it short.
Good - Expansion packs, Oblivion: Shivering Isles
Bad - Map packs

 

[Weaver]

The only good DLC I've purchased was Red Alert 3: Uprising which was technically more of an expansion really.

 

[The_Echo]

snip

See, I still disagree with all the people who say they locked away the true ending.

As far as I'm concerned, I've seen the ending of Asura's Wrath, after Asura and his broheim tore that demon a new one; the bit after was just the typical cliffhanger, 'oh here we again' stuff I've come to expect in books, film, TV and just about everything else nowadays. Instead, I sprang for the Ryu and Akuma DLC instead because that just sounded awesome.

Unless, was it actually confirmed that Capcom did their favourite trick of literally chopping off a part of the game they'd already made?

Because then, yeah, that's a dick move.

I'm not sure how Part IV became DLC, but I would definitely consider it the true ending. (Also it was awesome.) If I had bought the game at launch, I would have been pissed that they kept an ending out of the disc game.

BioShock Infinite also, hopefully, will have good DLC, despite being plot-based. 'Cause it'll (again, hopefully) just give more information on the world and characters rather than suddenly introduce information imperative to the course of events from the base game.

 

[doomed89]

Mirror's Edge was DLC done right, not planned at all, listen to what the fans wanted and made entirely new content. DLC in every fighting game is very wrong usually on disk and costume crap nothing you want to spend money on or should even have to.

 

[THE_MUFFIN_MAN15]

Good
- Unreal tournament 3's free dlc packs that added a butt load of new maps and content. This encouraged me to buy the game and keep it. Surprisingly I still play UT3 today.
- Red dead redemption's which added a bunch of new game modes, weapons, maps, and a fun spin-off story
- LittleBigPlanet's optional costumes (which are backwards compatible with LittleBigPlanet 2), level-making tools, and developer-made levels that can be played whether you bought it or not so long as one person in your party has it.

Bad
- Day-one dlc that's price is somehow justified because the developer made it a week or two before release while the game/experience itself is $60 regardless of how many years or people it took to make.
- Map packs that divide the multiplayer community into "have bought" and "have not bought" groups, making matchmaking later in the games life difficult for "have not"'s

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

DLC is one of those tricky things; you have to make sure it's substantial enough to warrant buying but also that it can truly bring something to the game without feeling like just mission add-ons. Good examples would be:

Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles - Offers a new playable sandbox with funky new enemies while also not detracting from the main quest.

Fallout 3: Broken Steel, Point Lookout - The former rectified the game ending after the final story mission, continued with a new quest line, AND upped the level cap with new perks. The latter again gave a huge amount of content with a new map and new stuff to get and interact with. Too bad the rest of the Fallout 3 DLC was rather lackluster (especially Operation Anchorage)

Dragon Age Origins: Awakening - A good, old-fashioned expansion pack. Offered a smaller, but also good campaign with new companions, new classes, new abilities, redone crafting, and a neat castle mechanic.

Fire Emblem: Awakening - Admittedly a LOT of the DLC is fanservice, challenge modes, or stuff that can suck challenge right out, but they're all still fun without making them seem required or truly detracting from the game. The FREE DLC that offers unique characters, teams of past FE characters, and new weapons is definitely a plus

New Super Luigi U - Again, essentially an expansion pack for NSMBU where Nintendo completely reworked the level design to accommodate Luigi's skillset.

Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and the Damned, The Ballad of Gay Tony - New characters in the same city but with storylines that truly feel like an addition rather than an afterthought.

Dead Rising 2: Case Zero - An interesting case due to essentially being DLC BEFORE a game was released that served as funky pre-expansion/demo for the player.

 

[IronMit]

If I feel like I got my money's worth and there's nothing ridiculously shady about the dlc (mass effect 3- day1 dlc exploiting every fan's investment in the story) then I'm cool with it...even if I decide I can't afford it.

so Good DLC - Bethesda games, Dark Souls,

Deus ex:HR (average dlc but nothing shady, no need to play it)

mass effect 3's last dlc was fine, the rest of them were disgusting. ME2: arrival, shadow broker was exploitative considering it had more to do with the plot then the main game.

Gunpacks,outfits for Hitman absolution were fine...if I liked the game I would of gladly shown my appreciation by purchasing them... But I didn't like the game. lol

 

[Voulan]

I haven't invested much at all in DLC, so my choices are limited only to TES: Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and Borderlands 2.

So definitely at the top of the list is Shivering Isles for Oblivion - a whole new world complete with new weapons, armour, items and even alchemy ingredients, and even a big list of side quests. You can't go wrong with that, really. The rest for Oblivion (bear in mind I'm on PS3 so I'm automatically reduced to a grand total of two) were nothing that impressive, to be honest. Don't get me started on horse armour, although to be fair, it was the sheer number of people that bought it which made it so ridiculous.

Dragonborn for Skyrim was made along the same lines as SI, but fell short in length, and it wasn't helped by the bleak aspect of Solstheim in the first place, making it slightly depressing and the landscape a little dull. Props for a very interesting main storyline though. What made me angry was Bethesda's promise of more Shivering Isles content, but in the end we only got this, Dawnguard which I haven't played but is along the same lines, and Hearthfire, which is my least favourite DLC akin to the Horse Armour fiasco. Build your own house! And that's about it. And then they announced that they wouldn't be doing any more, even though they announced at Skyrim's release years of DLC support with the same depth as SI. So much for that.

BL2's DLC have been fairly good, but nothing I'm especially impressed by, especially in terms of length. They're all so short. Dragon's Keep is hailed as the best, and I'd love to say the same, but upon starting it up and walking forward a few paces, I quickly discovered that the game had broken - a boss fight was supposed to trigger and didn't, which left me completely stuck and unable to continue. Within 2 MINUTES OF STARTING, AND I'M ALREADY UNABLE TO CONTINUE. I'm still waiting for a fix, and I understand this takes a while, but it has already marred the experience for me. I mean, at the very beginning? Come on!

Fallout 3's DLC is definitely not my favourite. This was mostly due to horrendous performance bugs and the like, which upped my chances of having to do hard resets every time I sat down to play them. Mothership Zeta was pretty inspired, but was reduced to being a series of corridors (though you can't be too harsh on that since it only takes place in the one, confined area), and with only one real chance of gathering things to take back with you, which meant a lot of hard decisions about what to leave behind so I could actually carry everything. The concept was fantastic though. Broken Steel was nothing more than a continuation, although it did present a new level of game-changing morality, and Operation Anchorage was a lot of fun, but very short and ultimately effected nothing. Point Lookout offered the most in content, but was filled with performance issues and its main story was a little dull.

So all in all, my time with DLC has not been that great. I can't really justify the cost for any of them in the end.

 

[Syzygy23]

You want an example of bad DLC?

Look at everything Capcom does.

Dark Arisen was REALLY good though!

 

[Jayemsal]

All DLC is bad. I have yet to see DLC where the the amount of content you get for the price you pay isn't 1/10th that of the base game or less. It's like walking into a bakery and buying a dozen muffins for $6 and the baker tells you he is selling DLC Muffins at $2 each. What a scam. Why wouldn't you just buy another dozen?(i.e. why wouldn't you buy another game than $50 worth of DLC that doesn't haven 10% of the content of a full game.

Then you must not actually look at any DLC.

There is plenty out there.

 

[Joccaren]

Good DLC is anything that could not be included in the base game, and thus is sold as an expansion of sorts later. Its up to the buyer to decide whether the price justifies the content, but any content for this is fair; Skins, New Weapons, New levels, New Characters, more story - ect. This is giving the consumer more content that they can acquire if they wish, without locking anything from the true base game away behind it.

Bad DLC is content either ripped from the base game and sold to earn more money, or content that you have to pay repeatedly for in either the form of microtransactions or subscriptions that lock content or features behind them, and only partially unlock them when you do pay. This is blatant money grabbing, locking the consumer out of content they should by all rights have, but that you want them to pay for instead.

 

[Joccaren]

ME2: arrival, shadow broker was exploitative considering it had more to do with the plot then the main game.

I found it wasn't so much exploitative as poorly planned. Released long after the game, it wasn't as if Bioware were sitting around going "Lets cut this content out and sell it for more money later!". They weren't trying to bludge everyone out of money. They just came up with ideas that were actually more important to the story than the entirety of ME2, made them a year or so after ME2, and then sold them. Its perfectly legitimate DLC. Its poor game design, but legit DLC.